Epstein Secrets

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

n, but it was a damages remedy that already existed at the time of Defendant EPSTEIN's commission of the acts against the minor. Hence, here, unlike Landsgraf, there was an existing civil remedy prior to Defendant EPSTEIN's commission of the acts against the minor Plaintiff, and there continues to be such

Plaintiff has not been able to 12 EFTA00222884 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 13 of 19 dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the r

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

y not present here, and the record is devoid of any factual material that would support such a conclusion.10 As Justice Blackmun said in dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the r

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

y not present here, and the record is devoid of any factual material that would support such a conclusion.1° As Justice Blackmun said in dissent in Landsgraf, there is no vested right to break the law." Bottom line is, a motion to dismiss a claim is not the correct procedural mechanism to determine the r