Epstein Secrets

Y REQUESTED BY: PLAINTIFF JUDGE: PART 25 - JAMES W. HUTCHERSON PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY: ROSENBERG & HOROW

sufficient to meet the general notice requirements of Rule 8 by adequately setting forth a claim and giving the defendants fair notice of its basis. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and [nEl] Procedure : Civil §§ 1216, 1217, 1286 (1969). ° 4

of normal adolescent ideals." (Emphasis Added). W. Epstein is also entitled to know, among other thi

ion To Dismiss, dated May 22, 2009, ("MOL"). Accordingly, Defendant states: I. Legal Standard (pp. 1-2 of Plaintiff's MOLI Plaintiff's reliance on Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), as the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard is misplaced. As discussed in Defendant's motion to dismiss, (pp. 16 - 17), the

However, the Plaintiff fails to discuss meaningfully the statute at issue or provide any authority relating to the claim Plaintiff seeks to assert. (W.) E. Negligence, wantonness and breach of fiduciary duty claims against BIC (Counts VIII-XI). BIC argues that the Plaintiffs negligence, wantonness

t Rule l3(a)(2) requires that the pleading "'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests" (quoting Conley v. Gibson. 355 U.S. 41. 47. 78 S. Ct. 99.2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957))). B. The Plaintiffs claims against BIC are properly asserted in tort. BIC argues that all cl