Epstein Secrets

stein, and how she could assert that claim. Despite her attempts to rationalize her actions in January 2009, 2 In their reply, petitioners refer to Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and contend that, "[t]hat firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did

criminal trial." Alcatel-Lucent 688 F.3d at 1306 (citing United States'. Johnson 983 F.2d 216, 219 (11th Cir. 1993)). Against this backdrop, where the Eleventh Circuit has determined that the CVRA must be strictly construed, this Court should decline to enlarge these proceedings to allow additional 3 Government E

ould have consulted with her attorney regarding the CVRA lawsuit mentioned in the September 3, 2008 letter.3 2 In their reply, petitioners refer to Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and contend that, "[t]hat firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did

c. D.E. 310 at 15-16 citin International Broth. of Teamsters I. AFL-CIO, 32 F.R.D. 441, 442 (E.D.Mich. 1963). Since it is a precedential decision of the Eleventh Circuit, McLellan is binding authority. Accordingly, if the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are applied to petitioners' motion to add Jane Doe No. 3 and J

and how she could assert that claim. Despite her attempts to rationalize her actions in January 2009, it is 2 In their reply, petitioners refer to Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and contend that, "[t]hat firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did n

fic. D.E. 310 at 15-16, citing International Broth. of Teamsters'. AFL-CIO, 32 F.R.D. 441, 442 (E.D.Mich. 1963). Since it is a precedent decision of the Eleventh Circuit, McLellan is binding authority. Rule 15 governs petitioners' motion to add two new parties. II. PETITIONERS' MOTION TO AMEND THEIR PETITION SHOULD

Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff C.M.A.. 15 THE COURT: Good morning. 16 MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine 17 Ezell from Podhurst Orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan 18 Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to 19 appear by telephone. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Jose

JPL/slm Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Filth Circuit handed down prior to September 30, 1981, are binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. $.0 Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala , 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981). K&E 19439748.2 EFTA00180297 Rov BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK Scorer A

. Richard Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff C.M.A.. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine Ezell from Podhurst Orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to appear by telephone. THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, ar

ur Office prevails on that Issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the violation of

14 Willits, here on behalf of the plaintifflila. 15 THE COURT: Good morning. 16 MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine 17 Ezell from Podhurst Orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan 18 Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to 19 appear by telephone. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Jose

ur Office prevails on that issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the violation of

e and relatively economically disadvantaged minor girls, and sexually assaulted, molested, and/or exploited these girls, and then gave them money. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 2 25 West Flagler Street. Suite 800. Miami, FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305358.2382 • Fat Lauderdale 954.463.4316 www.podhurst.com EFT

009 WL 2567831, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009). U.S.' Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.l (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18 2009). As to the meaning of "actual damages," the Eleventh Circuit in McMillian i t F.D.I.C., 81 F.3d 1041, 1055 (I I th Cir.1996)3, succinctly explained: 3 In McMillian the I 1th Circuit was faced with the task of