Epstein Secrets

a personal meeting between Shanks andAbigail Wexner in New York City on or about March 15, 2000. 12: The visit between Shanks and Abigail Wexner in Now York City was arranged by Abigail Wexner's personal assistant, Karl W. Koon. : . 13. Following 'the March 15, '2002 visit between Shanks and Abigail wexne

S 1-877-DOC-RETR (1-877-362-7387) (Additional Charges Apply). Dockets - NEW YORK SUPREME COURT Current Dates 04/24/2007 Source: SUPREME COURT, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK CAM smrcamanom Case Titles J. EPSTEIN G COMPANY 457 MADISON AVENUE CORP. Court: SUPREME COURT, NEW YORK COUNTY Divisions SUPREME C

d that would accompany 'the first paragraph of any newspaper story' - that is the 'who, what, when, where and how' of the events at issue.'" In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc., 311 F.3d at 217 (quoting In re Burlington, 114 F.3d at 1422). However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the "require

the present action, the state with the most significant relationship to the transaction is New York: the contract being sued upon was executed in Ncw York. defendant Ep- stein Is a New York citizen. and I.A.G. is a New York corporation. Moreover, both parties agree that New York law applies in this ca

e 12(b)(6) motion, I ac- cept all allegations in the complaint as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Int, 311 F.3d 198, 215 (3d Cir.2002). "The inquiry is not whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail in a trial on the merits, but whethe

ese claims, and instead shall look to Virgin Islands law to determine whether the plaintiffs have stated claims cognizable in this jurisdiction. 2. NEW YORK'S MARTIN ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS LAWSUIT The defendants aver that the Martin Act, New York General Business section 352 et seq., bars the plaintiff

Rule 12(b)(6) motion, I accept all allegations in the complaint as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc., 311 F.3d 198, 215 (3d Cir.2002). "The inquiry is not whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail in a trial on the merits, but whether