Epstein Secrets

irements for the sufficiency of a complaint, there should be a strong presumption in favor of narrowly confining the decision to its facts. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) ( “It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case i

plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 5 of 12 6 Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc

y confining the decision to its facts. Cohens I. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) ( "It is a maxim not to be di

he plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8)• see also Bell Atlantic Corp. I. 5 EFTA00222022 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 6 of 12 Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dur

y confining the decision to its facts. Cohens I. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) ( "It is a maxim not to be di

he plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8)• see also Bell Atlantic Corp. I. 5 EFTA00222486 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 6 of 12 Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dur

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE 43, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AND Defendants. CASE NO. 17 Civ 616 (JGK) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISM

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