Epstein Secrets

AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 11ih day of August, 2009. Copies furnished to: all counsel of record KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge rZ 9 EFTA00728682

T SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 09-80469-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EP

circumstances exist requiring dismissal of the federal action in favor of the first filed state action. See American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990). The exceptional circumstances test is set forth in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr., 460 U.S. 1 (198

ions to Epstein's Motion to Compel and/or Identify. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/20/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/22/2009 15 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruc

No. 102 v. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Lead case: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Member case: (View

cited by Defendant EPSTEIN do not support a decision by this Court to abstain over what is a purely federal claim. In American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier cl

utory text.2 See also this Court's recent orders on motions to dismiss in other actions filed against EPSTEIN by "Jane Does," Case Nos: 08-CV-80119- MARRA/JOHNSON; 08-CV-80232-MARRA-JOHNSON; and 08-CV-80380-MARRA- JOHNSON; requiring sufficient allegations of predicate acts. A reading of §2422(b) shows

sdiction. Id.' Because concurrent jurisdiction exists over this federal claim, the six factor analysis as discussed in American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882, 884 (11th Cir. 1990), applies in determining whether the exceptional circumstances exist requiring dismissal of the federal action i

EIN, and Defendants. ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED'

cited by Defendant EPSTEIN do not support a decision by this Court to abstain over what is a purely federal claim. In American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 891 F.2d 882 (111" Cir. 1990), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier c