Epstein Secrets

THERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE #1, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, HALEY ROBSON, and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. NOTICE OF REMOVAL July 18, 2008 STEVEN M. LARIMORF CLERK D.S. DIST. CT. S.O. OF FLA. • MIAMI In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441

stroy diversity jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court 2 2 Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. ¶ 5), and is therefore a nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 3 Section

ourt may not conduct jurisdictional discovery under such circumstances, another division of this Court has since allowed it. Compare Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1215-16, 1221 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that jurisdictional discovery to determine citizenship upon removal is inappropriate), with

ot yet obtained Jane Doe #18's telephone records, we were able to identify her telephone number, and there are twenty telephone calls that appear on Sarah Kellen's phone records. All of those calls were outgoing (meaning Kellen called Jane Doe #18.) The telephone calls range in date from August 27, 2003 throu

each day would be made. The girls would travel to Epstein's home in Palm Beach where they would meet Epstein's chef and Epstein's assistant—usually Kellen—in the kitchen. The assistant normally would escort the girls upstairs to the master bedroom/bathroom area and set up the massage table and massage

or illative history to the contrary." Bradley Richmond School Board, 416 U.S. 696, 711, 94 S.Ct. 2006, 2016, 40 L.Ed.2 476 (1974); New Eng- land Power Co. United States, 693 F.2d 239, 244 (1st Cir.982). The case before us is one that was pending on October 12. The district court had not reached a fi

y jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court .3 Haley 2 Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. ¶ 5), and is therefore a nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 3 Section

ourt may not conduct jurisdictional discovery under such circumstances, another division of this Court has since allowed it. Compare Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1215-16, 1221 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that jurisdictional discovery to determine citizenship upon removal is inappropriate), with