7
Shared Docs
5
Same-Page
7 / 7
Mentions
UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. U
stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit
UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. U
he earlier or later court was misled; and (3) whether the inconsistent later position would unfairly prejudice the opposing party. Tampa Bay Water,. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 25 EFTA00211742 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013) citing Robinson I. Tyson Foods. Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (I I th Cir. 2010). In their st
UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. U
stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit
es: The most recent court decision to carefully review the Justice Department's position is Jane Does #1 and #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV- MARRA/JOHNSON (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2011). In that case, the court flatly rejected the Department's claim that rights attach only after charges are formall
position would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." DE 401-2 at 25 (emphasis added) (citing Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating the state court proceedings as the "earlier" proceedings, the Government does n
UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs UN
F.2d 1324, 20 EFTA00299040 1325 (9th Cir. 1975). As this Court has recognized, "a contracting party is the paradigm of an indispensable party." HDR Engineering, Inc. v. R.C.T. Engineering, Inc., No. 08- 81040-CIV-ICAM, 2010 WL 2402908, *2 (S.D.Fla. June 15, 2010) (citation omitted). "Parties to a contract are ind
UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED
Page: EFTA00021442 →al acceptance of the inconsistent later position would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating the filing of a civil court complaint as an earlier "proceeding," Epstein does n
Page: EFTA00021495 →UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED
Page: EFTA00022546 →al acceptance of the inconsistent later position would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating the filing of a civil court complaint as an earlier "proceeding," Epstein does n
Page: EFTA00022599 →Entities connected to both Kenneth Marra and HDR Engineering, Inc.

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSONJane Doe
PERSON
Bradley Edwards
PERSON
Paul Cassell
PERSON
A. Marie Villafana
PERSON
United States
LOCATION
Alexander Acosta
PERSONLeon Black
PERSON
George W. Bush
PERSON
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATIONMaria Farmer
PERSON
Jeffrey Sloman
PERSON
Dexter Lee
PERSON
Salt Lake City
LOCATION
the University of Utah
ORGANIZATION
S.J. Quinney College of Law
ORGANIZATIONFISTOS & LEHRMAN
ORGANIZATION
Marc Rich
PERSONthe Eleventh Circuit
ORGANIZATIONKuyrkendall
PERSON