Epstein Secrets

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN 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 wit

lez, Case No. 50 2008 DR 001141 (Palm Beach Co. Family Ct.) (1/31/08). If this turns out to be the case, there is complete diversity, regardless of Robson's citizenship. Although the Eleventh Circuit has recently indicated that a district court may not conduct jurisdictional discovery under such circu

Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone els for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. CI Fe/d & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own

in- strumentalities in federal court. Argen- tine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 439, 109 S.CL 683, 102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989); Robinson v. Gov't of Malaysia, 269 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir.2001). Federal courts must inquire at the "threshold of every action" against a for- eign state wh

nce 186-881 In New York, a plaintiff may establish negligent infliction of emotional distress under the bystander or direct duty theory. Baker v. Dorfman, 239 F.3d 415, 421 (2d Cir2000). Under the by- stander theory, "a defendant's conduct is negligent as creating an unreasonable risk of bodily har

diction. (b) There is no ossibili that the plaintiff can establish a cause of action against under Florida law. (i) The conspiracy claim against Robson must fail. As a general rule, "[a]n actionable conspiracy [under Florida law] requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong." Wright v. Yurko, 44

on the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else (= ) for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct, 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own

3031340, 600:00.rt 64064, 10:0100 33133 301316 EFTA00180409 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 4 of 100 Robson, besides having nothing to do with the substantive allegations of the plaintiff's $50,000,000 case, is a community-college student with no assets w

Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own

in- strumentalities in federal court. Argen- tine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 439, 109 S.Ct. 683, 102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989); Robinson v. Gov't of Malaysia, 269 F.3d 133, 188 (2d Cir.2001). Federal courts must inquire at the “threshold of every action” against a for- eign state wheth

igence [86-88] In New York, a plaintiff may establish negligent infliction of emotional distress under the bystander or direct duty theory. Baker v. Dorfman, 239 F.3d 415, 421 (2d Cir.2000). Under the by- stander theory, “a defendant’s conduct is negligent as creating an unreasonable risk of bodily harm t