Epstein Secrets

n 7 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. ProHac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plain

Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. ProHac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 S

ree-standing action for injunctive relief or in conjunction with a tort action for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty. See, M·, Saini v. International Game Technology, 434 F.Supp.2d 913, 924 (D.Nev. 2006)(court finds that company had shown likelihood of success in proving breach of implied covenant of good faith

3301 Phone:954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 [email protected] Cmailto: [email protected] for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/201

Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101

ree-standing action for injunctive relief or in conjunction with a tort action for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty. See, M·, Saini v. International Game Technology, 434 F.Supp.2d 913, 924 (D.Nev. 2006)(court finds that company had shown likelihood of success in proving breach of implied covenant of good faith

r Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101

425 N. Andrews Ave. Suite #2 Fort LanderdAle FT. 11301 Phone Fax: Cmailto:bedwardserra-law.comounse/for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 UT 84112 Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Tara A. Finnigan, Esq. Garcia

e-standing action for injunctive relief or in conjunction with a tort action for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty. agg, a g., Saini v. International Game Technology, 434 F.Supp.2d 913, 924 (D.Nev. 2006)(court finds that company had shown likelihood of success in proving breach of implied covenant of good faith