Epstein Secrets

trict Court of the Virgin Islands for damages sustained as a result of the loss of their goods. After finding that Ocean-Air's activities within the Virgin Islands constituted transacting business within the Territory and contracting to supply services or things in this Territory within the meaning of subsectio

LANDS ARE THE CORRECT FORUM FOR PLAINTIFFS' CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT. Ignoring the facts that: Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein is a resident of the United States Virgin Islands with his home on Little Saint James Island; L.S.J., LLC, which is solely owned by a United States Virgin Islands resident and maintains its principa

fs' FAC, the factual allegations of which must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, clearly establishes the Virgin Islands' overwhelming local interest in this controversy. The controversy is of local interest in the Virgin Islands and localized interest rests with the V

ended by Studio and Fancelli when they contracted that the Library Cabinetry was to be installed and used in an office/library structure located in the United States Virgin islands and would be therefore subject to temperature and humidity levels inherent in a Caribbean climate, as well as within an office structure in

a light most favorable to the non-movant, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint with Points and Authorities should be denied in its entirety. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), Ashcroft v. !Oat 556 U.S. , 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210- 211 (3r° Cir. 200

t forth, above, this case lacks merit and should be dismissed no matter where it is filed. Having said that, and as you know, Epstein resides in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the court has personal jurisdiction over him. Moreover, the other Defendants are all located in states other than New York and no significant

andards applicable to fraud based claims, it also fails to meet the more relaxed pleading standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). These two decisions set forth the basic requirements for pleading a

t forth, above, this case lacks merit and should be dismissed no matter where it is filed. Having said that, and as you know, Epstein resides in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the court has personal jurisdiction over him. Moreover, the other Defendants are all located in states other than New York and no significant

andards applicable to fraud based claims, it also fails to meet the more relaxed pleading standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). These two decisions set forth the basic requirements for pleading a