CM/Eer - Live Database - flsd Page 9 of 9 in the Alternative, for a More Definate Statement. Responses due by 6/26/2009. Page limit is set at 36 pages. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/9/2009. (ir) (Entered: 06/10/2009) 06/10/2009 50 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 45 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Jane Doe. Error - Wrong Event Selected;. Instruction to Filer - In the future, please select the proper event, i.e. Notice of Adoption. It is not necessary to refile this document. (Is) (Entered: 06/10/2009) or View Selected Download Selected Total filesize of selected documents (MB): I Maximum filesize allowed (MB): 10 PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 06/10/2009 14:44:15 PACER Login: du4480 Client Code: Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: Ir-cv-80591- M Billable Pages: 5 Cost: 0.40 https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DlaRpt.p17716393569552562-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175314

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. Y EPSTEIN and Defendants. PLAINTIFF, M.'S, CONDITIONAL NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXCLUSIVELY RELY ON STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVIDED BY 18 U.S.C. 42255 Plaintiff, , by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files her Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 U.S.C. §2255, and in support thereof states as follows: 1. This is an action to recover money damages against Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for acts of sexual abuse and prostitution committed upon the then- minor, 2. Plaintiff has plead thirty separate counts against EPSTEIN for separate incidences of abuse committed by EPSTEIN against Plaintiff pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255. 18 U.S.C. §2255, entitled "Civil remedy for personal injuries", creates a private right of action for minor children who were the victim of certain enumerated sex offenses. 18 U.S.C. §2255 also creates a statutory floor for the amount of damages a EFTA00175315

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 2 of 4 victim can recover for a violation of same. Plaintiff has also alleged a single count of Sexual Battery against EPSTEIN as well. 3. There presently exists between the Plaintiff and EPSTEIN a disagreement as to whether the statutory damage floor established in 18 U.S.C. §2255 is recoverable for each commission of an enumerated sex offense listed in 18 U.S.C. §2255, or whether the statutory damage floor can only be enforced once, regardless of how many times a defendant perpetrates an enumerated sex offense against a minor victim. 4. This disagreement between the parties is properly the subject of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State a Cause of Action, and Motion For More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, and Supporting Memorandum of Law (D.E. 47) which is currently pending before this Court. 5. In the event that the Court rules that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the statutory damages created by 18 U.S.C. §2255 for each violation', Plaintiff will be pursuing only those statutory damages, and will not pursue damages available at common law. 6. Should the Court rule however, that the statutory damage floor can only be applied once, Plaintiff will be pursuing any and all damages available to her, whether they be pursuant to statute or by common law. I The parties also disagree about the amount the statutory damage floor should be for this case. 18 U.S.C. §2255 was amended In 2006 to Increase the floor from $50,000 to $150,000. The parties essentially disagree about which version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 should apply in this case. EFTA00175316

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 3 of 4 Respectfully submitted, /c/.lank P Hill JACK SCAROLA Florida Bar No. 169440 JACK P. HILL Florida Bar No.: 0547808 Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach. 409 Phone: Fax: Attorneys for Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 5th, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached counsel list via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. tqllnck P Hill JACK SCAROLA Florida Bar No. 169440 JACK P. HILL Florida Bar No.: 0547808 Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Bearh Florida 33409 Phone: Fax: Attorneys for Plaintiff, EFTA00175317

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 4 of 4 COUNSEL LIST Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue S. West Palm Beach FL 33401 Phone: Bruce E. Reinhart, Esquire Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 South Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Phone: Fax: Robert Critton, Esquire Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman LLP 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach FL 33414 Phone: Fax: Richard H. Willits, Esquire Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10th Avenue North Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 Phone: Fax: EFTA00175318

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON v. Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants, DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to dismiss Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008). Count II is directed only to Defendant who has not yet been served. In support of dismissal, Defendant states: Plaintiff, , attempts to assert a cause of action against EPSTEIN in Count I of her Complaint. A review of the inadequate Complaint allegations establishes that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action under either common or statutory law, and thus, Count I against EPSTEIN is required to be dismissed. Rule 12(b)(6), Fla.R.Civ.P. Count I alleges in part that while Plaintiff was a minor, beginning when she was 14 — 6. On numerous occasions ..., JEFFREY EPSTEIN intentionally induced and/or seduced the Plaintiff into performing various acts of lewd and lascivious conduct and/or sexual performances in his presence. ... 7. On numerous occasions ..., JEFFREY EPSTEIN performed various acts of lewd and lascivious conduct in the presence of the Plaintiff. ... EFTA00175319

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 2 of 7 v. Epstein, et al. 8. On numerous occasions ..., JEFFREY EPSTEIN touched the Plaintiff's breasts and genitilia. 9. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered mental anguish, mental pain and suffering, psychic trauma, and a loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life. (Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint, ¶2, that she is presently 21 years old. The suit was originally filed in Florida state court, Palm Beach County Circuit Court, on February 21, 2008.) Count I is lacking in sufficient factual allegations to allege the necessary elements to state a cause of action either under common or statutory law. In fact, Count I fails to allege any recognizable elements. There is absolutely no reference in Count I as to whether Plaintiff is attempting to assert some type of common law cause of action or as to whether she is relying on some type of Federal or State of Florida statute that might give rise to a civil cause of action. In addition, the Complaint generally alleges that "on numerous occasions," as opposed to alleging specific dates and times. Finally, the Complaint very generally references "lewd and lascivious conduct and/or sexual performances" without any underlying factual allegations. Accordingly, Count I is subject to dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. Supporting Memorandum of Law Rule 12(b)(61 Motion To Dismiss As established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twomblv, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id, at 1974. Although the complaint need not provide detailed factual allegations, the basis for relief in the complaint must state "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic EFTA00175320

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 3 of 7 . v. Epstein, et at 0,3 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id, at 1965. Further, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. On a motion to dismiss, the well pleaded allegations of plaintiffs complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. M.T.V. v. DeKalb County Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). Significantly, the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly abrogated the often cited observation that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[ave] open the possibility that a plaintiff might later establish some 'set of [undisclosed] facts' to support recovery." Id. As explained by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp., supra at 1664-65: While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, ibid.; Sanivag.i. American Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 1..7 19941, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (on a motion to dismiss, courts "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation"). Factual allegations 11211st be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, see 51. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 4 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) ("[T]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if EFTA00175321

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 4 of 7 . v. Epstein, et al. age 4 doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506. 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992. 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827. 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236. 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (111h Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the pleading specificity standard is that 'stating such a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest' the required element." In order to sufficiently allege the claim, the complaint is required to identify "facts that are suggestive enough to render [the element] plausible." Watts 495 F.3d at 1296 (quoting Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965). As jurisdiction is based on diversity, it is well settled that this Court is to apply Florida substantive law in this action. Erie R.Co. v. Tompkins, 58 S.Ct. 817 (1938). On its face, Count I completely fails to allege either the necessary elements of any cause of action or the necessary underlying factual allegations. As quoted above, Count I makes general references to "lewd and lascivious conduct and/or sexual performances" without any specific statutory or common law reference. Florida Statutes, Chapter 800, Title XLVI — CRIMES, entitled "Lewdness, Indecent Exposure," are criminal statutes'. Assuming for the sake of argument that Plaintiff means to rely on these statutes, none of the statutes contained in Chapter 800 create a private right of action. See H800.02, 800.03, 800.04, Fla. Stat. Rather, the ' This action began in Florida state court, Palm Beach County 15th Judicial Circuit Court, and was removed to Federal Court pursuant to a Notice of Removal filed by Defendants. EFTA00175322

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 5 of 7 . v. Epstein, et al. Page 5 statutes set forth acts subject to criminal prosecution and the criminal penalties therefor, if proven. See generally, Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So.2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005)("not every statutory violation carries a civil remedy'); and Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ferre, 636 F.Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985)(violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to civil cause of action for damages). According, Count I is required to be dismissed as Chapter 800, which references lewd conduct, does not create a private right of action. Mantooth v. Richards, 557 So.2d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), per curiam, (Dismissal of plaintiffs civil complaint affirmed where parental kidnapping statutes concerned only criminal violations and did not create a civil remedy). As well, the Count I allegations make absolutely no reference to any viable common law cause of action; Defendant should not be required to guess or speculate as to the nature of Plaintiffs cause of action. Even if Defendant were to speculate as to the supposed cause of action, these causes of action (common law or otherwise) have not been sufficiently alleged. On its face, Count I is completely lacking as to any common law elements or the underlying factual allegations to support each element, and thus, Count I is required to be dismissed. Finally, as noted, there are no allegations as to time regarding the alleged "numerous occasions." Pursuant to Rule 9(f), Fed.R.Civ.P., "pleadings of time or place is material when testing the sufficiency of a pleading." Conclusion EFTA00175323

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 6 of 7 116 v. Epstein, et al. Pursuant to applicable law, Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint is required to be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. On its face, Count I fails to allege a cause of action either under statutory or common law against Defendant EPSTEIN. Count I fails to plead any requisite elements or the necessary underlying facts. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 7th day of January, 2009: Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10th Avenue North Suite 404 L m k Worth FL 33461 imo s Fax: C unse or ainti Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Search Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard st Palm Beach, FL 33409 Fax: jsxesearcvlaw.com jphesearcylaw.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 net Counsel for Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Bruce Reinhart, Esq. & Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm beach, FL 33401 ounse or e en an Respectfully submitted, EFTA00175324

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 7 of 7 v. Epstein, et al. By: ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 rcrit@bcIcl w.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 moikeebdclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone Fax ounce or .efendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00175325

CM/ECF - !Ave Database - flsd Page 1 of 16 LSS, MEDIATION, REF_DISCOV U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80811-KAM MI v. Epstein et al Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson Lead case: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Member case: (View Member Case) Case: 9:09-cv-80802-KAM Cause: 28:1332 Diversity Plaintiff V. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Date Filed: 07/21/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity represented by Richard Horace Willits Richard H Willits PA 2290 10th Avenue North Suite 404 Lake Worth , FL 33461 Fax: Emai : ree r otmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jack Patrick Hill Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard PO Drawer 3626 West Palm Beach , FL 33402-3626 PIM Email: represented by Bruce Reinhart Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/ogi-bin/D1ctRpt.p17985369616841682-1.,801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175326

CM/ECF - !Ave Database - flsd Page 2 of 16 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401 Fax: Emai LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Guy Alan Lewis Lewis Tein 3059 Grand Avenue Suite 340 Coconut Grove , FL 33133 Fax: 442-6744 Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-5012 Fax: 835-8691 Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael Ross Tein Lewis Tein 3059 Grand Avenue Suite 340 Coconut Grove , FL 33133 Fax: 442-6744 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael James Pike Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive https://ecf.flsd.useourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?985369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175327

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 3 of 16 Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Fax: 515-3148 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert Deweese Critton , Jr. Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Defendant represented by Bruce Reinhart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Guy Alan Lewis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jack Alan Goldberger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael Ross Tein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Amiens United States of America represented by United States Attorney's Office 500 East Broward Blvd 7th Floor Ft Lauderdale , FL 33394 , ext. 3546 https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.pl?985369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175328

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 4 of 16 Fax: 356-7336 Email: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # clear Docket Text 07/21/2008 1 r MB IA NOTICE OF REMOVAL Filing fee $350 Receipt#: 724505, filed by Jeffrey Epstein, MI (rb) (Entered: 07/21/2008) 07/22/2008 2 r 972 ica ORDER of Instructions. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 7/22/2008. (bc) (Entered: 07/22/2008) 07/25/2008 3 IT I " xs MOTION for Hal Defendants' Request for Oral Argument by Jeffrey Epstein, (Tein, Michael) (Entered: 07/25/2008) 07/25/2008 4 r 57.9 KB MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Defendants Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein, (Tein, Michael) (Entered: 07/25/2008) 07/25/2008 5 r 521 Ica NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein!". Notice of Related Actions (Tein, Michael) (Entered: 07 07/25/2008 6 Sealed Document. (igo) UNSEALED see DE 32 Modified on 1/7/2009 (ral). (Entered: 07/25/2008) 07/25/2008 7 Sealed Document. (igo) UNSEALED see DE 33 Modified on 1/7/2009 (ral). (Entered: 07/25/2008) 07/25/2008 32 r 93.1 KB UNSEALED MOTION to File Under Seal by Jeffrey Epstein, (previously filed as 6 sealed document) (ral) (Entered: 01/07/2009) 07/25/2008 la r 1.6 MB UNSEALED MOTION to Stay by Jeffrey Epstein, IMINE. (previously filed as 7 sealed document)(ral) (EntereETT/777709) 07/29/2008 8 r 92.1 KB ORDER denying without prejudice 4 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 7/28/2008. (bc) (Entered: 07/29/2008) 07/30/2008 2 ri 94.6 KB MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Defendants' Renewed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein, . (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order ein, wheel) (Entered: 07/30/2008) 07/30/2008 10 PAPERLESS ORDER denying 3 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge https://ecfflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi bin/DktRptpl?985369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175329

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 5 of 16 William J. Zloch on 7/30/2008. (bc) (Entered: 07/30/2008) 08/06/2008 11 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 9 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 8/6/2008. (bc) (Entered: 08/06/2008) 08/07/2008 12 I 173 KB MOTION to Reassign Case TO JUDGE KENNETH MARRA by . (Willits, Richard) (Entered: 08/07/2008) 08/07/2008 B r 34.1 KB MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 6 Sealed Document, 7 Sealed Document TO MOTION TO STAY filed by .. (Willits, Richard) (Entered: 08/07/2008) 08/14/2008 14 PAPERLESS ORDER denying 12 Motion to Reassign Case. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 8/14/2008. (bc) (Entered: 08/14/2008) 08/18/2008 15 r 9g MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply Defendants' Motion for An Enlargement of Time to File RalthInder Seal Because of Tropical Storm Fay by Jeffrey Epstein, IME. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tein, Michael) (Entered: 08/18/2008) 08/18/2008 16 r 40.2 Ica SCHEDULING REPORT- Rule 26(f). (Tein, Michael) (Entered: 08/18/2008) 08/20/2008 17 Sealed Document. (rb) UNSEALED see DE 34 Modified on 1/7/2009 (ml). (Entered: 08/20/2008) 08/20/2008 34 r o.s MB UNSEALED REPLY in Support of 33 MOTION to Stay filed by Jeffrey Epstein, (previously filed as 17 sealed document) (ra 1) (Entered: 01/07/2009) 08/25/2008 18 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 8/25/2008. (bc) (Entered: 08/25/2008) 08/27/2008 19 r 143.3 KB NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein Notice of Appearance (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 08/27/2008) 08/28/2008 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 19 Notice (Other) filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Error - Wrong Event Selected; Correction - Redocketed by Clerk as NOTICE of Attorney Appearance. Instruction to Filer - In the future, please select the proper event. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ail) (Entered: 08/28/2008) 08/28/2008 20 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Michael James Pike, Robert Deweese Critton, Jr on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. Redocketed SEE Image 19 (ail) (Entered: 08/28/2008) 09/03/2008 21 r ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Kenneth A. Marra for all further proceedings. Judge William J. Zloch no longer https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/D1ctRpt.p11/985369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175330

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 6 of 16 • 501 KB assigned to case. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 8/29/2008. (tb) (Entered: 09/03/2008) 09/06/2008 22 r 163 Ica MOTION to Preserve Evidence by .. (Willits, Richard) (Entered: 09/06/2008) 09/06/2008 23 MOTION to Expedite certain discovery by .. (see image 2/ ) (tb) (Entered: 09/09/2008) 09/09/2008 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 22 MOTION to Preserve Evidence filed by .. Error - Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; Correction - Additional relief(s) 23 docketed by Clerk. Instructions to filer - In the future, please select all applicable reliefs. It is not necessary to refile this document. (tb) (Entered: 09/09/2008) 09/15/2008 24 r 60.4 KB ORDER denying in part n Motion to Preserve Evidence; granting in part 23 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 9/14/08. (ir) (Entered: 09/15/2008) 12/01/2008 25 r 32A KB NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jack Patrick Hill on behalf of (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 12/01/2008) 12/10/2008 26 r 82.5 ICB ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE & Discovery Deadlines; ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation, ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson for Discovery Proceedings: (Jury Trial set for 12/14/2009 in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Kenneth A. Marra., Calendar Call set for 12/11/2009 10:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Kenneth A. Marra., Amended Pleadings/Add Parties due by 12/1/2008., Discovery due by 5/28/2009., Substantive Pretrial Motions due by 7/30/2009.),. **Please see Order for further details" Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 12/10/2008. (gp) (Entered: 12/11/2008) 12/17/2008 27 r 67.9 KB ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL re 6 Sealed Document, 17 Sealed Document, 7 Sealed Document. The clerk shall unseal docket entries 6, 7 and 17 and make them available for public inspection through CM/ECF at the earliest possible time. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 12/16/2008. (ir) (Entered: 12/17/2008) 12/17/2008 28 ,r7n `K; ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 6 Sealed Document, 7 Sealed Document. Per this Court's Order DE 27 the Clerk shall unseal and terminate these pending documents. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 12/16/2008. (ir) (Entered: 12/17/2008) 12/19/2008 29 F 360.1 KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 12/19/2008) httos://ecfflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi bin/DktRptp17)85369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175331

CM/ECF -Live Database - flsd Page 7 of 16 12/19/2408 30 ENDORSED ORDER granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint. Jeffrey Epstein response due 1/7/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 12/19/2008. (ir) (Entered: 12/19/2008) 12/30/2008 31 I - 7" KB NOTICE by Jeffrey Epstein of Withdrawal as Co-Counsel (Tein, Michael) (Entered: 12/30/2008) 01/07/2009 35 r OA MB Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 Notice of Removal Complaint for Failure to State a Cause of Action by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 1/26/2009 (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 01/07/2009) 01/22/2009 36 r- 19.o KB MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 35 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss.1 M...a lice of Removal Complaint for Failure to State a Cause of Action by.a.. (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 01/22/2009) 01/23/2009 37 ENDORSED ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re a5. Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 1 Notice of Removal Complaint for Failure to State a Cause of Action. Amended Complaint due by 2/9/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 1/22/2009. (ir) (Entered: 01/23/2009) 02/05/2009 38 1 4: MOTION for Entry of an Amended Scheduling Order re 26 Scheduling Order,,, Order Referriarage to Mediation,,, Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge„ by .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Order Setting Trial Date)(Hill, Jack) (Entered: 02/05/2009) 02/09/2009 39 r 4.° MB AMENDED COMPLAINT, filed byall..(Hill, Jack) (Entered: 02/09/2009) 02/09/2009 40 r 4.° MB AMENDED COMPLAINT, filed by ..(Hill, Jack) (Entered: 02/09/2009) 02/10/2009 41 IT 55.6 KB ORDER denying as moot 35 Motion to Dismiss Complaint. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 2/10/2009. (ir) (Entered: 02/10/2009) 02/10/2009 42 r 15" KB INagaLMOTION for Extension of Time to File Selection of Mediator by..... (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 02/10/2009) 02/10/2009 4a r 182A KB ORDER granting 38 Motion for entry of an Amended Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Man-a on 2/10/2009. (ir) (Entered: 02/10/2009) 02/10/2009 Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Calendar Call set for 2/19/2010 10:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Kenneth A. Marra. Jury Trial set for 2/22/2010 09:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Kenneth A. Marra. Amended Pleadings due by 3/16/2009. Discovery due by 8/28/2009. Expert Discovery due by 6/29/2009. Joinder of Parties due by 3/16/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 10/15/2009. (ir) https://ectflsd.uscourts.gov/cgi bin/DktRpt.pl?985369616841682-L 8010-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175332

CM/ECF -Live Database - flsd Page 8 of 16 (Entered: 02/10/2009) 02/11/2009 44 ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot 42 Motion for Extension of Deadline for parties to select mediator. Amended scheduling order entered on 2/10/09. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 2/11/2009. (ir) (Entered: 02/11/2009) 02/17/2009 45 r 420.3 KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 4Q Amended Complaint with proposed Agred Order by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 02/17/2009) 02/17/2009 46 r 31.4 KB ORDER granting 45 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer First Amended Complaint. Jeffrey Epstein response due 3/12/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 2/17/2009. (ir) (Entered: 02/17/2009) 03/12/2009 47 r 2.8 MB Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 4() Amended Complaint (First) by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 3/30/2009 (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 03/12/2009) 03/12/2009 4$ r 53.9 KB NOTICE of Cancelling Deposition (ail) (Entered: 03/13/2009) 03/16/2009 49 n 483.1 KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogs and Production of Documents w/ Proposed Order by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2009) 03/19/2009 50 r alai KB ORDER Granting 49 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff. Defendant shall file Motions on or before 4/6/09. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson on 3/19/2009. (sa) (Entered: 03/19/2009) 03/24/2009 51 r MB 29 Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 4() Amended Complaint and or Continue Action by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 4/10/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 03/24/2009) 03/25/2009 52 r 0.9 MB Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 41 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 40 Amended Complaint (First) by .. (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 03/25/2009) 03/26/2009 53 ENDORSED ORDER granting 52 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 47 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 4() Amended Complaint (First). Responses due by 4/13/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 3/26/2009. (ir) (Entered: 03/26/2009) 04/02/2009 54 r 2.6 1,AB Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP and 1st Interrogs by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 4/20/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Critton, Robert) (Entered: https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bitt/DktRpt.p17985369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175333

CM/ECF Live Database - flsd Page 9 of 16 04/02/2009) 04/09/2009 - 55 r 41.8 KB Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 51 Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 40 Amended Complaint and or Continue Action by . (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 04/09/2009) 04/10/2009 56 ENDORSED ORDER granting 55 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 51 Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 40 Amended Complaint and or Continue Action. Responses due by 4/24/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Mara on 4/10/2009. (ir) (Entered: 04/10/2009) 04/13/2009 57 r 3682 Ica NOTICE of Mediator Selection: Mark Buckstein selected.(Hill, Jack) (Entered: 04/13/2009) 04/13/2009 58 r 1.8 M f3 RESPONSE to Motion re 47 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 40 Amended Complaint (First) filed by . Replies due by 4/23/2009. (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 04/13/2009) 04/14/2009 59 r 2°61 ka NOTICE by of Filing Correction to Page Four of Plaintiff's Memorandum o Law in Response to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Cause of Action, and Motion for More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed on April 13, 2009 (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 04/14/2009) 04/17/2009 60 r 158.6 KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply as to 58 Response to Motion by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/17/2009) 04/20/2009 61 ENDORSED ORDER granting 60 Motion for Extension of Time to Reply re 47 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 4(1 Amended Complaint (First). Replies due by 5/8/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/20/2009. (ir) (Entered: 04/20/2009) 04/20/2009 62 r 1.2 MB RESPONSE in Opposition re 54 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP and 1st Interrogs filed by . (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 04/20/2009) 04 /22%2009 63 r 313:: MOTION for Leave to File Jane Doe's No. 101's Motion For Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss and Certification of Having Conferred Pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1.A.3 by Jane Doe No. 101. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Josefsberg, Robert) (Entered: 04/22/2009) 04/24/2009 M 17 Ma RESPONSE in Opposition re 51 Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 40 Amended Complaint and or Continue Action filed by .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Hill, Jack) ntered: 04/24/2009) httos://eef,f1sd.uscourts.gov/cgi bin/DktRpt.p179135369616841682-L 801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175334

CM/ECF Live Database - flsd Page 10 of 16 04./27/2009 65 r 189.2 KB Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in his Reply to Plaintiff's Memo in Response to Motion to Dismiss by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/27/2009) 04/27/2009 66 ENDORSED ORDER granting 65 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Reply may exceed 10 pages. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/27/2009. (ir) (Entered: 04/27/2009) 04/28/2009 68 r 602 KB ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why cases should not be consolidated for discovery purposes Show Cause Response due by 5/5/2009.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 4/28/2009. (cqs) (Entered: 04/29/2009) 04/29/2009 61 r 1.2 MB Defendant's MOTION to Compel and/or 'den* el in the Style of This Case and Motion to 'den* II in Third arty Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternative y, Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte , with Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 5/18/2009 (Attachments: # I Motion to Compel and or Identify, # 2 Motion to Compel and or IdentifyXPike, Michael) (Entered: 04/29/2009) 04/29/2009 - 69 r 150.3 KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay and or Continue Action for Time Certain Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/29/2009) 04/30/2009 70 r i 1.3 MB REPLY to Response to Motion re 54 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP and 1st Interrogs , and to Overrule Objections, and for an Award of Defendant's Reasonable Expenses filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Defendant Epstein's Reply to Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel, # 2 Exhibit A-1 to Def. Epstein's ReplyXPike, Michael) (Entered: 04/30/2009) 05/04/2009 71 ENDORSED ORDER granting 69 Motion for Extension of Time to Reply re 5_1 Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 0 Amended Complaint and or Continue Action. Replies due by 5/11/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/4/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/04/2009 72 - r 265.1 ics RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by .. (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/04/2009 73 11 278.6 ic MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 68 Order to Show Cause by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/04/2009) 05/04/2009 74 MOTION for clarification 68 Order to Show Cause by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 5/21/2009. See image DE 73 (1k) Modified link on 5/5/2009 (lk). (Entered: 05/05/2009) 05/05/2009 75 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 73 https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bitt/DktRpt.p1T985369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175335

ClvVECF 7 Live Database - flsd Page 11 of 16 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Error - Two or More Document Events Filed as One; Correction - Additional event(s) 74 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION docketed by Clerk. Instruction to Filer - In the future, please select all applicable events, UNDER MOTIONS. It is not necessary to refile this document. (1k) (Entered: 05/05/2009) 05/05/2009 76 r 145.3 KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply as to 64 Response in Opposition to Motion by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/05/2009) 05/06/2009 77 ENDORSED ORDER granting 76 Motion for Extension of Time to Reply re 51 Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 4() Amended Complaint and or Continue Action. Replies due by 5/15/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/5/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/06/2009) 05/08/2009 78 r Ls Is4B REPLY to Response to Motion re 47 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 40 Amended Complaint (First) filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/08/2009) 05/08/2009 :79 r 18M KB Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 63 MOTION for Leave to File Jane Doe's No. 101's Motion For Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss and Certification of Having Conferre by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/08/2009) 05/11/2009 - 80 ENDORSED ORDER granting 79 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 63 MOTION for Leave to File Jane Doe's No. 101's Motion For Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss and Certification of Having Conferre.. Responses due by 5/15/2009. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/11/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/11/2009) 05/13/2009 81 r 383.3 KB RESPONSE/REPLY to 64 Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/13/2009) 05/14/2009 Cases associated. (dg) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 82 r Iv ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES. Hereinafter all motions and other court filings that relate to discovery and all procedural motions that relate to multiple cases shall be styled with all of the case names and numbers and shall be filed in Case No. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. (ir) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 83 ORDER REQUESTING UNITED STATES PROVIDE POSITION TO httos://eef.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi bin/DktRptpl?985369616841682-L 801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175336

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 12 of 16 . . • r 1.3 MB MOTION TO STAY. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Motion to Stay DE 51) Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. (ir) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 84 ORDER denying as moot 74 Motion for Clarification. See Order consolidating cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (Ic3) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/14/2009 85 ORDER terminating 51 Motion to Stay; terminating 67 Motion to Compel. See Order consolidating cases. See procedural motions pending: DE 65 and DE 91 in 08-80119.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/14/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 05/14/2009) 05/15/2009 86 r MB Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant's Motion to Ident( a in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law by . Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 9:08-cv-80811-KAM ack) (Entered: 05/15/2009) 05/15/2009 87 ri 357.7 KB RESPONSE in Opposition re 63 MOTION for Leave to File Jane Doe's No. 101's Motion For Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant Jeffiey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss and Certification of Having Conferre filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/15/2009) 05/18/2009 88 ORDER terminating 86 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond. Filing motion in 08-80119 is sufficient, as the underlying motion to compel identity is pending in 08-80119 for all the cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/18/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 05/18/2009) 05/18/2009 89 r, 0.6 NIB Plaintiff's MOTION to Strike Ik e ly to Response to Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint by . Responses due by 6/5/2009 (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 05/18/2009) 05/19/2009 2Q r a Defendant's MOTION to Strike Cases from Current Trial Docket by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 6/8/2009 (Attachments: # I Exhibit A) Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/19/2009) 05/19/2009 91 r 56.7 KB MOTION for Leave to Withdraw as Co-Counsel by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed OrderXTein, Michael) Event Modified on 5/20/2009 (ail). (Entered: 05/19/2009) 05/20/2009 92 ORDER terminating (93) Motion to Strike ; terminating (94) Motion in case 9:08-cv-80232-ICAM; terminating (110) Motion to Strike ; terminating (111) Motion in case 9:08-cv-80380-KAM; terminating (95) Motion to Strike ; terminating (96) Motion in case 9:08-cv-80381-KAM; terminating (90) Motion to Strike ; terminating (91) Motion in case 9:08- httos://eciflsd.useourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p17985369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175337

CM/ECF Live Database - flsd Page 13 of 16 cv-80811-ICAM; terminating (62) Motion to Strike in case 9:08-cv-80893- KAM; terminating (62) Motion to Strike in case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM; terminating (50) Motion to Strike in case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/20/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 93 r 363.1 KB NOTICE by of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to e endant, Jetty Epstein's Motion to Compel And/Or Identify in the Style of This Case and Motion to Identify in Third-Party ubpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, Or, Alternative y, Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Inorporated Memorandum of Law Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al.(Hill, Jack) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 94 - ll li9cli3 RESPONSE in Opposition re 89 Plaintiffs MOTION to Strike 21_3 Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Cause of Action filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 95 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 91 MOTION Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Co-Counsel filed by Jeffrey Epstein. The Filer selected the wrong motion relief when docketing the Motion. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future motions filed must include all applicable relief events. (ail) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/20/2009 96 ORDER STRIKING in all Epstein cases EXCEPT case no. 08-80119: Notice by of Filing Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Epstein'inn 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-ICAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/21/2009 97 r 361.9 KB RESPONSE/REPLY Jane Doe No. 101's Reply to Defendant's Response in Opposition to Jane Doe No. 101's Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs Reponse In Opposition to Defendant Jay Epstein's Motion to Dismiss by Jane Doe No. 101. (Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/21/2009) 05/21/2009 98 2r .2 0 KB RESPONSE/REPLY to 89 Plaintiffs MOTION to Strike Z8 Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Response in Support of Plaintiff is Motion to File Surreply to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State a Cause of Action and Motion for More Definite Statement by Jane Doe No. 101. (Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/21/2009) 05/27/2009 99 NOTICE by Jane Doe re (111 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs httns://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?985369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/200) EFTA00175338

CM/ECF 7 Live Database - flsd Page 14 of 16 . , 11 5:: MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv- 80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90)Plaintiffs MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to (91 in 9:08-cv- 80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv- 80119-KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 05/27/2009) 05/28/2009 100 ORDER STRIKING Notice by Jane Doe in all Epstein cases EXCEPT in case 08-80119. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases... Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Main on 5/28/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (Ic3) (Entered: 05/28/2009) 05/28/2009 I 0 I i so i KB ORDER denying 63 Motion for Leave to File Brief; denying 89 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/28/2009. (ir) (Entered: 05/28/2009) 05/29/2009 102 n 11 6 KR NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by I. on behalf of afiraaf ica Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. r MEW (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 103 r 3;iii RESPONSE to Motion re (72 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (62) Amended Complaint, (57 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (50) Amended Complaint, (24 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (1) Complaint, (23 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (18) Amended Complaint, (22 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (19) Amended Complaint, (65 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (56) Amended Complaint, (68 in 9:08-cv-80381- KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (60) Amended Complaint, (51 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Stay re (40) Amended Complaint and or Continue Action Filed Pursuant to Court's Order Requesting Government's Position filed by United States of America. lie 09. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. MEM) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 104 r 223.6 KB Defendant's MOTION to Strike 98 Response/Reply (Other), Response/Reply (Other), Response/Reply (Other) by Jeffrey Epstein. Responses due by 6/15/2009 (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 105 r 43.3 KB RESPONSE in Opposition re (90 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identify Doe in Style of Case and in Third-Party Subpoenas, (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/29/2009) https://ed.flsd.useourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p1T985369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175339

CM/ECF: Live Database - flsd Page 15 of 16 05/29/2609 106 ORDER STRIKING (124 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, 105 in 9:08-cv-80811- KAM, 74 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM, 72 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 106 in 9:08-cv-80232-ICAM, 123 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM, 35 in 9:09-cv-80591- KAM, 25 in 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, 60 in 9:08-cv-80994-ICAM, 22 in 9:09- cv-80656-KAM, 107 in 9:08-cv-80381-ICAM) Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101 DO NOT FILE IN EVERY EPSTEIN CASE. SEE ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/29/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08- cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 107 r 24.5 KB MOTION for Leave to File UNDER SEAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO UNSEAL THE NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 05/29/2009 108 r 19.5 KB MOTION for Hearing MOTION TO RESCHEDULE HEARING by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Josefsberg, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 06/01/2009 109 ORDER STRIKING (28 in 9:09-cv-80469-KAM, 126 in 9:08-cv-80380- KAM, 109 in 9:08-cv-80232-ICAM, 25 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 77 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM, 38 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 110 in 9:08-cv-80381- KAM, 63 in 9:08-cv-80994-KAM, 75 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 108 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM) Motion to Continue Hearing filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101, (76 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM, 109 in 9:08-cv- 80381-KAM, 108 in 9:08-cv-80232-KAM, 62 in 9:08-cv-80994-ICAM, 125 in 9:08-cv-80380-KAM, 74 in 9:08-cv-80893-KAM, 24 in 9:09-cv- 80656-KAM, 37 in 9:09-cv-80591-KAM, 107 in 9:08-cv-80811-KAM, 27 in 9:09-cv-80469-KAM) Motion for Leave to File, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE FILED ONLY IN 08-80119. SEE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/1/2009. (1c3) (Entered: 06/01/2009) 06/01/2009 110 ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot 104 Motion to Strike. See DE 101 denying motion to strike or to file sur-reply. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/29/2009. (ir) (Entered: 06/01/2009) 06/04/2009 111 r 349.0 KB REPLY to Response to Motion re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM) Plaintiff's MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No- Contact Order Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Reply to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Response to Plaint* Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe No. 102's Motion for a No-Contact Order filed by Jane Doe No. 101, Jane Doe No. 102. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (Ezell, Katherine) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/04/2009 1 12 ORDER STRIKING (112 in 9:08-cv-80381-KAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80232- KAM, 136 in 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM, 111 in 9:08-cv-80811-ICAM, 128 in https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi bin/DktRpt.pl?985369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175340

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd Page 16 of 16 ' • . 9:08-cv-80380-ICAM, 65 in 9:08-cv-80994-ICAM, 79 in 9:08-cv-80893- KAM, 42 in 9:09-cv-80591-ICAM, 27 in 9:09-cv-80656-KAM, 32 in 9:09- cv-80469-ICAM, 79 in 9:08-cv-80993-KAM) Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101 Document stricken for failure to follow Court's orders. DO NOT FILE A DOCUMENT IN EVERY EPSTEIN CASE if it is to be filed only in 08-80119. See Case Management Order and contact CM/ECF Support for assistance in proper filing.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/4/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 06/04/2009) 06/05/2009 113 r 295.8 KB NOTICE by of Filing Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 US.C. 2255 (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 06/05/2009) 06/05/2009 114 r 0.6 MB Plaintiff's MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Treatment Records From Parent-Child Centgrajugh and Dr. Serge Thys and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by .. (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 06/05/2009) 06/08/2009 115 r 3.8 MB RESPONSE to Motion re (91 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Defendant's MOTION to Compel Identity of Doe in Style of Case and Third-Party Subpoenas (replaces Docket entry 90) filed by Jane Doe. Replies due by 6/18/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/08/2009 116 p 106.1 KB NOTICE by Jane Doe re (113 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) Plaintiffs MOTION Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and Jane Doe 102's Motion for No- Contact Order -Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 Notice of Joinder Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-ICAM et al.(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/08/2009) View Selected Total filesize of selected documents (MB): I or Maximum filesize allowed (MB): 10 Download Selected PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 06/10/2009 13:34:47 PACER Login: du4480 Client Code: Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 9:08-ev-80811- M Billable Pages: 10 Cost: 0.80 https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.p17985369616841682-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175341

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON In A., Plaintiff, v. US EPSTEIN and Defendants, DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MOTION TO STRIKE, AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to dismiss Count I through XXXI of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and for more definite statement, or to strike, as specified herein. Rule 12(b)(6), (e) and (f), Fed.R.Civ.P. (2008); Local Gen. Rule 7.1 (S.D. Fla. 2008). In support of dismissal, Defendant states: The First Amended Complaint attempts to allege 32 counts. Counts I through XXX are purportedly brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 - Civil Remedies for Personal Injuries; Count XXXI is entitled "Sexual Battery," and Count XXXII is entitled "Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault only against Defendant, ." Under the heading "Factual Allegations" of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also references numerous federal and state criminal statutes, but fails to allege whether or not she is attempting to assert claims based on these statutes. (¶15, 1st Am. Comp.). EFTA00175342

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 3 of 21 M . v. Epstein, et al. Page 3 assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. On a motion to dismiss, the well pleaded allegations of plaintiffs complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. M.T.V. v. DeKalb County Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). Significantly, the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly abrogated the often cited observation that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[ave] open the possibility that a plaintiff might later establish some 'set of [undisclosed] facts' to support recovery." Id. As explained by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp., supra at 1664-65: While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations ibid.: Sanjuan v. American Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (C.A.7 1994), a plaintiffs obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (on a motion to dismiss, courts "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation"). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) ("[T]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion (of] a legally cognizable right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's EFTA00175343

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 5 of 21 M . v. Epstein, et al. Page 5 Contrary to Plaintiff's attempted assertion of 30 separate counts pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §2255 - Civil Remedy for Personal Injuries, this statute creates a single federal cause of action or "civil remedy" for a minor victim of sexual, abuse, molestation and exploitation. Under the plain meaning of the statutory text, §2255 does not create separate causes of action on behalf of a minor against a defendant on a "per violation" basis. No where in the statutory text is there any reference to the civil remedy afforded by this statute as being on a "per violation" basis. 18 U.S.C. 2255(a) creates a civil remedy for "a minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation ... ." See Smith v. Husband 428 F.Supp.2d 432 (E.D. Va. 2006); Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2006); Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F.Supp.2d 742, 754 (M.D. Pa. 2007); and the recent cases in front of this court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement — Doe No. 2 v. Epstein 2009 WL 383332 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009). Doe No. 3 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 383330 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); Doe No. 4 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 383286 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); and Doe No. 5 v. Epstein, 2009 WL 383383 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009). There is no reported case supporting Plaintiff's tortured and nonsensical interpretation of §2255. In all of these cases (cited above), each of the Plaintiffs brought a single count or cause of action attempting to allege numerous violations of the "predicate acts" specifically identified in §2255. "18 U.S.C. §2255 gives victims of sexual conduct who are minors a private right of action." Martinez v. White 492 EFTA00175344

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 7 of 21 v. Epstein, et al. age v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When interpreting a statute, [a court's] inquiry begins with the text."). "The Court must first look to the plain meaning of the words, and scrutinize the statute's 'language, structure, and purpose." Id. In addition, in construing a statute, a court is to presume that the legislature said what it means and means what it said, and not add language or give some absurd or strained interpretation. As stated in CBS. Inc supra at 1228 — "Those who ask courts to give effect to perceived legislative intent by interpreting statutory language contrary to its plain and unambiguous meaning are in effect asking courts to alter that language, and '[c]ourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of Ethel provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd v. U.S. 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. Title 18 of the U.S.C.. is entitled "Crimes and Criminal Procedure." §2255 is contained in "Part I. Crimes, Chap. 110. Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children." 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2003), is entitled Civil remedy for personal injuries, and provides: (a) Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value. (b) Any action commenced under this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues or in the case of a person under a legal disability, not later than three years after the disability. Reading the entire statute in context, no where is there any language indicating that a minor plaintiff has a private right of action against a defendant "per violation." EFTA00175345

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 9 of 21 v. Epstein, et al. iage 9 brought a single cause of action, based on allegations of multiple violations of the §2255 predicate acts. Furthermore, the court refused to add a venue interpretation that simply was not written into the statutory text. See other §2255 cases cited herein. For an example of a statute wherein the legislature included the language "for each violation" in assessing a "civil penalty," see 18 U.S.C. §216, entitled "Penalties and injunctions," of Chapter 11 — "Bribery, Graft, and Conflict of Interests," also contained in Title 18 — "Crimes and Criminal Procedure." Subsection (b) of §216 gives the United States Attorney General the power to bring a "civil action ... against any person who engages in conduct constituting an offense under" specified sections of the bribery, graft, and conflicts of interest statutes. The statute further provides in relevant part that "upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation or the amount of compensation which the person received or offered for the prohibited conduct, which ever amount is greater." As noted, 18 U.S.C. §2255 does not include such language. Accordingly, Plaintiffs multiple counts brought pursuant to §2255 are required to be dismissed for failure to state multiple causes of action. B. Also requiring dismissal Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the requisite 52255 predicate acts. Also requiring dismissal of Plaintiffs purported §2255 claim(s) is Plaintiff's failure to sufficiently allege any violation of a requisite predicate act as specifically identified in subsection (a) of the statute quoted above. Relevant to Plaintiff's complaint, 18 U.S.C. 2255(a) creates a civil remedy for "a minor who is a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title EFTA00175346

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 11 of 21 . v. Epstein, et al. 1111 the standard of pleading as established in Twombly, supra, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the requisite elements of a §2255 claim, thus requiring dismissal; for failure to state a cause of action. C. 18 U.S.C. 42255 does not allow for the recovery of punitive damages. Thus, Plaintiff's request for punitive damages under 42255 is required to be dismissed or stricken. In each of the improperly asserted Counts I through XXX, Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages. A plain reading of 18 U.S.C. §2255, quoted above herein, establishes that the statute does not allow for the recovery of punitive damages. Had Congress wanted to allow for such a recovery, it could have easily written such language into the damages provision of the statute. The legislative body chose not to write a punitive damages component into §2255 as it has done in other statutes affording civil remedies. In relevant part, §2255 reads - Any minor who is a victim of a violation of section ... of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000 in value." See discussion of rules of statutory construction in part III.A. herein. See subsection (f)(2) of 18 U.S.C. §2252A, entitled Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography, also contained in Chapter 110, Part I, Crimes, within which specific reference is made to "compensatory and punitive damages" in setting forth the relief which may be afforded to a plaintiff in bringing a civil action under §2252A(f). EFTA00175347

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 13 of 21 v. Epstein, et al. R/13 statute prohibits a number of activities involving criminal 'proceeds." Id, at 2023. Noting that the term "proceeds" was not defined in the statute, the Supreme Court stated the well settled principle that "when a term is undefined, we give it its ordinary meaning." Id, at 2024. Under the ordinary meaning principle, the government's position was that proceeds meant "receipts," while the defendant's position was that proceeds meant "profits." The Supreme Court recognized that under either of the proffered "ordinary meanings," the provisions of the federal money-laundering statute were still coherent, not redundant, and the statute was not rendered "utterly absurd." Under such a situation, citing to a long line of cases and the established rule of lenity, "the tie must go to the defendant." Id, at 2025. See portion of Court's opinion quoted above. "Because the 'profits' definition of 'proceeds' is always more defendant friendly that the 'receipts' definition, the rule of lenity dictates that it should be adopted." Id. Plaintiffs position would subject Defendant EPSTEIN to a punishment that is not clearly prescribed — an unwritten multiplier of the "actual damages" or the presumptive damages. The rule of lenity requires that Defendant's interpretation of the remedy afforded under §2255 be adopted. In addition, under the Due Process Clause's basic principle of fair warning - ... a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime ... . As was said in United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 812, 98 L.Ed. 989, 'The constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute. The underlying principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.' EFTA00175348

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 15 of 21 IS. v. Epstein, et al. Page 15 offenses outlined in Chapter 800 of the Federal Codes, as well as those designated in Florida Statutes §796.03, §796.07, §796.045, §796.04, §39.01; and §827.04." In ¶203 Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's "tortious commission of sexual battery upon were (sic) done willfully and maliciously." Supporting Defendant's position that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action in Count )OO0, 18 U.S.C. O2241(c), not §2241 in its entirety, as discussed above, is one of the predicate acts, along with 2242, 2243, 2421, and 2423, designated in the federal civil remedy statute — 18 U.S.C. §2255. Plaintiff attempted and failed to allege such a claim in the previous counts. Defendant can find no criminal offenses in any "Chapter 800 of the Federal Codes" which give rise to a civil cause of action. The same is true for Plaintiffs reference to the Florida Statutes. Not one of the statutes referenced creates a private cause of action or affords a civil remedy on behalf of the alleged victim of the criminal offense." (Except for Florida Statute §39.01, all of the statutes referenced by Plaintiff are contained Title XLVI. Crimes of the Florida Statutes). The referenced criminal statutes set forth acts subject to criminal prosecution and the criminal penalties therefor, if proven. See generally Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Coro. 908 So.2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005)("not every statutory violation carries a civil remedy"); Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ferre, 636 F.Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985)(violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to civil cause of ' Florida Statutes O796.03 — Procuring person under age 18 for prostitution; 796.04 — Forcing, compelling, or coercing another to become a prostitute; 796.045 (which did not become effective until Oct. 1, 2004) - Sex trafficking; penalties; 796.07 — Prohibiting prostitution, etc.; evidence; penalties; definitions; and §39.01, entitled "Definitions," is contained in Title V — Judicial Branch, Chapter 39 - "Proceedings relating to Children." EFTA00175349

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 17 of 21 . v. Epstein, et al. 0•17 Defendant EPSTEIN, but rather allows Plaintiff to attempt to assert a single civil remedy if she can prove a violation of any of the statutory enumerated predicate acts. Further, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege a requisite predicate act under §2255. In addition, §2255 does not allow for recovery of punitive damages. Count XXXI is also subject to dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action, as Plaintiff has failed to allege a legally viable or recognizable cause of action. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant his motion to dismiss Counts I through XXXI, or alternative motion for more definite statement, and motion to strike. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this m'day of March 2009: Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 101h Avenue North Suite 404 L 33461 Fax: Counsel for Plaintiff I.M.A. reelrhwAhotmail.com Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard ach, FL 33409 Fax: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 B-ach, FL 33401-5012 Fax: jaqesqAbellsouth.net Counsel for Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Bruce Reinhart, Esq. & Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 ach, FL 33401 Fax: EFTA00175350

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 19 of 21 . v. Epstein, et al. Page 19 attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison. § 2242. Sexual abuse Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly-- (1) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is-- (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. § 2243. Sexual abuse of a minor or ward (a) Of a minor.--Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who-- (1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and (2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. (b) Of a ward.--Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is-- EFTA00175351

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 21 of 21 ME. v. Epstein, et al. Page 21 (c) Engaging in illicit sexual conduct In foreign places.--Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. (d) Ancillary offenses.--Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, arranges, induces, procures, or facilitates the travel of a person knowing that such a person is traveling in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. (e) Attempt and conspiracy.--Whoever attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) shall be punishable in the same manner as a completed violation of that subsection. (f) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "illicit sexual conduct" means (1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age. (g) Defense.--In a prosecution under this section based on illicit sexual conduct as defined in subsection (f)(2), it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom the defendant engaged in the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 years. EFTA00175352

Ci.se 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80811-MARRAIJOHNSON Plaintiff, v. EPSTEIN and ME Defendants, Defendant, Jeffrey Enstein's Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Stay And/Or Continue Action For Time Certain With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN") by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay and/or Continue Action (DE 64), and states: I. Introduction and Argument Plaintiff, in the instant matter, did not draft her own Response to the Motion to Stay. Instead, Plaintiff incorporated Plaintiffs' responses to the motion to stay in certain related matters (DE 64), and adopted those arguments as her own.I Plaintiff's Response in Opposition challenging the stay should not prevail when 5m Amendment principles are at issue and when there exists a real, substantial and not remote possibility that Epstein may face criminal prosecution by the United States Attorneys' Office ("USAO") if the USAO unilaterally determines that Epstein somehow violated that certain Non- Prosecution Agreement dated June 30, 2008 ("NPA") and/or if Epstein is forced to waive those 5th Amendment rights and participate in civil discovery in order to defend this civil action. Accordingly, Epstein adopts his arguments set forth in the Reply to Jane Doe's Response In Opposition filed in 08-CIV-80893 (DE 54) and incorporates same herein by reference. EFTA00175353

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 3 of 7 Page 3 significant fact that a stay may be issued in light of an ongoing investigation. It is clear from the NPA and Jack Goldberger's Affidavit (attached to the Motion to Stay) ". . .that the criminal matters against Epstein remain ongoing until the NPA expires by its terms in late 2010. . ., and the threat of criminal prosecution against Epstein by the USAO continues presently and through late 2010." See Jack Goldberger's Affidavit, ¶5 (attached to the Motion to Stay)(DE 51). In fact, the FBI refused to provide information regarding this case and other related cases filed against Epstein ". . .stating the materials are at this time exempt from disclosure because they are in an investigative file, i.e., the matter is still an ongoing criminal investigation." See Jack Goldberger's Affidavit, ¶7 (attached to the Motion to Stay)(DE 51). Additionally, Plaintiff's response downplays the fact that civil discovery may result in the USAO claiming a breach of the NPA. Epstein wishes to vigorously defend this case and others filed against him; however, he does not wish to risk waiver of his 5th Amendment privileges, at least before the NPA expires or any investigation is closed. Further, Plaintiff adopts the arguments set forth in Jane Doe's Response to the Motion to Stay filed in 08-CIV-80893, which asserts that the NPA is not attached to Epstein's Motion to Stay. The Court has a copy of the NPA. While it may be sealed, this Court may review same, in camera. As such, Plaintiff's Best Evidence argument (as adopted) is entirely misplaced and should be disregarded. a. Justice Requires The Entry of A Stay As set out in the Motion to Stay, once the NPA expires, EPSTEIN intends to testify to all relevant and non-objectionable inquiries made to him in discovery be it a deposition, in interrogatories or in production requests. However, the current circumstances are such that by 3 EFTA00175354

Case 9 I;18-cv-80811-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 5 of 7 Page 5 for a stay of the civil case until the criminal aspects/investigation of Defendant's companion case are closed). Here, Epstein is not required to "contemplate an in haec verba iron-clad comparison of separate issues by direct proof." St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. U.S., 24 CI.Ct at 516. Instead, a reading of the complaint, the NPA (in camera), the pleadings in support of and against Epstein's Motion to Stay along with other pleadings in the clerk's file, makes it clear that the facts in the instant matter and those in the ongoing investigation are "related" and/or "substantially similar." Id. As such, permitting this civil action to go forward would create a hardship on Epstein in that he will be forced to invoke his 5th Amendment Privilege and risk loosing this case by virtue of not being able to present evidence, or waive that right and risk a potential criminal prosecution. Eastwood v, U.S., 2008 WL 5412857, *1 (E.D. Tenn.))("When a party to a civil action is subject to criminal proceedings and/or investigations that relate to such civil action, courts will often stay the civil proceeding so as to prevent the use of civil discovery and evidentiary procedures to obtain evidence for use in the criminal matter). Id. Courts will also stay a civil case to preserve 5th Amendment rights. Id, Further, a comparison of Fed.R.Civ. Pro. 26 may expand the rights of criminal discovery beyond the limits of Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 16(b). Epstein satisfies the requirements to stay this action as set forth in St. Paul Fire and in Eastwood, including the similarity of issues underlying the civil litigation and ongoing criminal investigation. As such, a stay should be entered in the instant matter. 5se also U.S. v. $75,020.00 in United States Funds, et al., 2009 WL 1010359 (M.D. G.a. 2009). 5 EFTA00175355

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2009 Page 7 of 7 Page 7 served this day on all counsel of record identifily t e following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this a day of , 2009 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10th Avenue North Suite 404 La - A.0 L33461 Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard ach, FL 33409 ax: [email protected] johAsearcylaw.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 ach, FL 33401-5012 ax: [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. & 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 ach, FL 33401 ounse or e en ant Res By: RO ., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 rcritnbciclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpikenbciclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 _ ach, FL 33401 Phone Fax 7 EFTA00175356

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants, / DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMEDNED COMPLAINT FOR FAIURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MOTION TO STRIKE, AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW, (dated April 13, 20091 Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel, files his reply to Plaintiffs Memorandum in Response to Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's, Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State A Cause of Action; And Motion for More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, And Supporting Memorandum of Law, dated April 13, 2009, (hereinafter "Plaintiff's response"). In reply to Plaintiff's response and further supporting Defendant's motion to dismiss Count I through XXXI of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and for more definite statement, or to strike, [DE 47), dated April 12, 2009, (hereinafter "Defendant's motion"), Defendant states: I. The 2003 version of 18 U.S.C. 42255 applies to this action. A. The statute in affect during the time the alleged acts occurred is the applicable version of 18 U.S.C. §2255; in this action — the 2003 version (quoted at p. 7, EFTA00175357

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 3 of 25 v. Epstein, et al. 113 These provisions demonstrate that retroactive statutes raise particular concerns. The Legislature's unmatched powers allow it to sweep away settled expectations suddenly and without individualized consideration. Its responsivity to political pressures poses a risk that it may be tempted to use retroactive legislation as a means of retribution against unpopular groups or individuals. As Justice Marshall observed in his opinion for "1498 the Court in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), the Ex Post Facto Clause not only ensures that individuals have "fair warning" about the effect of criminal statutes, but also "restricts governmental power by restraining arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation." td., at 28-29, 101 S.Ct., at 963-964 (citations omitted). FN20 FN20. See Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 513-514, 109 S.Ct. 706, 732, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989) ("Legislatures are primarily policymaking bodies that promulgate rules to govern future conduct. The constitutional prohibitions against the enactment of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder reflect a valid concern about the use of the political process to punish or characterize past conduct of private citizens. It is the judicial system, rather than the legislative process, that is best equipped to identify past wrongdoers and to fashion remedies that will create the conditions that presumably would have existed had no wrong been committed") (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 247, n. 3, 81 S.Ct. 1052, 1052, n. 3, 6 L.Ed.2d 246 (1961) (retroactive punitive measures may reflect "a purpose not to prevent dangerous conduct generally but to impose by legislation a penalty against specific persons or classes of persons"). As discussed more fully below herein, these well entrenched constitutional protections and presumptions against retroactive application of legislation establish that the version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2003) in effect at the time of the alleged conduct applies to the instant action, and not the amended version as claimed by Plaintiff. B. Not only is there no clear express intent stating that the statute is to apply retroactively, but applying the current version of the statute, as amended in 2006, would be in clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution as it would be applied to events occurring before its enactment and would increase the EFTA00175358

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 5 of 25 In. v. Epstein, et al. Page 5 2006 amended version of §2255 without any legal discussion supporting a retroactive application. (See p. 3 of Plaintiffs response). §2255 is contained in Title 18 of the United States Codes - "Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part I. Crimes, Chap. 110. Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children? 18 U.S.C. §2255 (2003), is entitled Civil remedy for personal injuries, and imposes a presumptive minimum of damages in the amount of $50,000.00, should Plaintiff prove a violation of the specified criminal statutes, and suffer personal injury with actual damages. Thus, the effect of the 2006 amendments, effective July 27, 2006, would be to triple the amount of the statutory minimum previously in effect during the time of the alleged acts. (Taking Plaintiffs position that the presumptive minimum is meant to be multiplied per violation — the damages would be 4.5 million. The express language of the statute has no multiplier.) No case has yet decided the specific issue before this Court —whether application of the 2006 version of §2255, which increased the statutorily presumed minimum damages from $50,000 to $150,000, regardless of the actual amount of damages suffered and proven, is prohibited from application under the Ex Post Fact Clause to the specified criminal acts occurring prior to the statutes effective date of July 27, 2006. The statute, as amended in 2006, contains no language stating that the application is to be retroactive. Thus, there is no manifest intent that the statute is to apply retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct is to apply. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute will become EFTA00175359

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 7 of 25 v. Epstein, et al. Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) to the defendant whose criminal conduct occurred before the effective date of the statute, 18 U.S.C. §3664(f)(1)(A), even though the guilty plea and sentencing proceeding occurred after the effective date of the statute. On July 19, 1996, the defendant Siegel pleaded guilty to various charges under 18 U.S.C. §371 and §1956(a)(1)(A), (conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, bank fraud, and laundering of money instruments; and money laundering). He was sentenced on March 7, 1997. As part of his sentence, Siegel was ordered to pay $1,207,000.00 in restitution under the MVRA which became effective on April 24, 1996. Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1229-1236. The 1996 amendments to MVRA required that the district court must order restitution in the full amount of the victim's loss without consideration of the defendant's ability to pay. Prior to the enactment of the MVRA and under the former 18 U.S.C. §3664(a) of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (VWPA), Pub.l. No. 97-291, 96 Stat. 1248, the court was required to consider, among other factors, the defendant's ability to pay in determining the amount of restitution. When the MVRA was enacted in 1996, Congress stated that the amendments to the VWPA "shall, to the extent constitutionally permissible, be effective for sentencing proceedings in cases in which the defendant is convicted on or after the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 24, 1996)." Siegel, supra at 1258. The alleged crimes occurred between February, 1988 to May, 1990. The Court agreed with the defendant's position that 1996 MVRA "should not be applied in reviewing the validity of the court's EFTA00175360

(Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 9 of 25 v. Epstein, et al. Page 9 In the instant case, in answering the first question, it is clear that that imposition of a minimum amount of damages, regardless of the amount of actual damages suffered and proven by a minor victim, is meant to be a penalty or punishment. See statutory text and House Bill Reports, cited above herein, consistently referring to the presumptive minimum damages amount under §2255 as "punishment" or "penalties? According to the Ex Post Facto doctrine, although §2255 is labeled a "civil remedy," such label is not dispositive; "if the effect of the statute is to impose punishment that is criminal in nature, the ex post facto clause is implicated." See generally, Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, at 360, citing Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 360-61 (1997). The effect of applying the 2006 version of §2255 would be to triple the amount of the presumptive minimum damages to a minor who proves the elements of her §2255 claim. (Under Plaintiff's attempted approach — the presumptive minimum would potentially increase from 1.5 million to 4.5 million ($50,000 X 30; $150,000 X 30). The fact that a plaintiff proceeding under §2255 has to prove a violation of a criminal statute to recover damages thereunder, further supports that the imposition of a minimum amount, regardless of the amount of a victim's actual damages sustained, is meant and was enacted as additional punishment or penalty for violation of criminal sexual exploitation and abuse of minors. Accordingly, this Court is required to apply the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal acts. Not only is there no language in the 2006 statute stating that it is to apply retroactively, but further, such application of the 2006 version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 to acts that occurred prior to its effective date would have a detrimental and EFTA00175361

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 11 of 25 v. Epstein, et al. age 11 When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the events in suit, the court's first task is to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach. If Congress has done so, of course, there is no need to resort to judicial default rules. When, however, the statute contains no such express command, the court must determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e., whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. If the statute would operate retroactively, our traditional presumption teaches that it does not govern absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result. Here, there is no clear expression of intent regarding the 2006 Act's application to conduct occurring well before its enactment. Clearly, however, as discussed in part B herein, the presumptive minimum amount of damages of $150,000 was enacted as a punishment or penalty upon those who sexually exploit and abuse minors. See discussion of House Bill Reports and Congressional background above herein. The amount triples the previous amount for which a defendant might be found liable, regardless of the amount of actual damages sustained and proven. The new statute imposes a substantial increase in the monetary liability for past conduct. (As discussed below, Plaintiff also proposes that the minimum damage amount is to apply on a per violation basis; the absurdity of such position is further magnified when one considers that the presumptive damages amount was tripled to $150,000). As stated in Landoraf, "the extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored." Courts have consistently refused to apply a statute which substantially increases a party's liability to conduct occurring before the statute's enactment. Landqraf, supra at 284-85. Even if the effective date of the Act. The Court determined that statutory text in question, §102, was subject to the presumption against statutory retroactivity. EFTA00175362

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 13 of 25 v. Epstein, et al. age 13 count complaint, including a single cause of action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 (Count I), along with 11 other counts based on state law ranging from negligence to intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss Count I because "plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to satisfy one of the predicate felonies mentioned in the statute." In describing the remedy created under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stated that the statute "authorizes a civil remedy for personal injuries suffered by a minor victim of certain federal felonies, ... ." Id, at 4. In other words, a minor, who Is a victim of any of the specified predicate criminal acts, may bring a §2255 claim "to recover the actual damages such minor sustains," regardless if a plaintiff proves one or multiple violations. As long as a plaintiff proves any violation of a specified criminal act and that he or she suffered personal injury, he or she is entitled to the presumptive minimum of damages imposed by the applicable statute - $50,000 in the instant case, even if the amount of actual damages proven is less. Again, the statute says nothing about the presumptive damages amount being for each violation or incident alleged. In her response, (pp. 3-9), Plaintiff at one point states that the express language allows for "a separate cause of action for each separate incident," but then goes on to rely on statutory interpretation principles applied when the language is vague or ambiguous. See p. 4 of response where Plaintiff states - "A review of the wording of 18 U.S.C. §2255 demonstrates no ambiguity." Plaintiff then references a portion of the legislative history and background on "Masha's Law." Plaintiff can cite to no case law EFTA00175363

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 15 of 25 v. Epstein, et al. 1,15 Plaintiff's reliance on In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (Konop v. Hawaiin Airlines, Inc.I 355 B.R. 225 (D. Hi. 2006), is misplaced. Unlike the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §2707(c), endnote', at issue in the Hawaiian Airlines case, the presumptive minimum is tied to the minor or person proving that she or he has suffered personal injury, along with actual damages sustained, as a result of any violation. To even bring a cause of action under §2255, a "minor/person" must prove a violation of enumerated criminal statute and "suffer personal iniury as a result of such violation." Only then "shall" such minor "recover the actual damages such minor sustains ... . Any minor/person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained damages of no less than $50,000/$150,000 in value." The statute at issue In Hawaiian Airlines does not address personal injury type damages. Significantly, the court found that the Stored Communications Act does not even require that the plaintiff prove actual damages or profits made by the violator to recover the statutory cap. Recovery under §2255, unlike the Stored Communications Act, is limited to a minor/person "who suffers personal injury" and mandates a recover of "actual damages," no matter how little is actually proven, of the statutory minimum. Hawaiian Airlines actually supports Defendant's position. The Court discussed and distinguished the Privacy Act, relying on Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614, 124 S.Ct. 1204 (2004), which contained similar language to the Stored Communications Act, but concluded that $1,000 minimum damage award under the Privacy Act was not subject to multiplication on a per violation basis because it was limited to a plaintiff who proves actual damages. See endnote 2 for relevant text of Privacy Act.2 In Doe v. Chao, the EFTA00175364

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 17 of 25 la. Epstein, et at Page 17 applying the rule of lenity, the Court sided with the Defendants' interpretation of the Lacey Act which makes illegal the possession of snook caught in specified jurisdictions. The snook had been caught in Nicaraguan waters. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss asserting the statute did not encompass snook caught in foreign waters. The United States disagreed. Both sides presented reasonable interpretations regarding the reach of the statute. In dismissing the indictment, the Court determined that the rule of lenity required it to accept defendants' interpretation. Also requiring dismissal Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the requisite §2266 predicate acts. (Plaintiff's Response, P. 10) Also requiring dismissal of Plaintiffs purported §2255 claim(s) is Plaintiff's failure to sufficiently allege any violation of a requisite predicate act as specifically identified in subsection (a) of the statute. Plaintiff in her response, p. 10, agrees that she has failed to sufficiently allege the predicate act(s) required by §2255. Defendant has no objection to Plaintiff attempting to amend, but Plaintiff should be required to plead a single cause of action under §2255 (2003), without seeking to multiply the presumptive minimum damages. IV. 18 U.S.C. 42255 does not allow for the recovery of punitive damages. Thus, Plaintiff's request for punitive damages under §2265 is required to be dismissed or stricken. (Plaintiffs Response, Part III, p. 11-18). Plaintiff's reliance on Tachiona v. Mugabe, 216 F.Supp.2d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), is misplaced as the federal statute at issue, the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), is clearly distinguishable. (Plaintiffs response, p. 11). See endnote 3 for relevant text.' Unlike §2255 which expressly provides that a successful plaintiff "shall recover the actual damages such minor/person sustains," the TVPA simply states that an individual EFTA00175365

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 19 of 25 . v. Epstein, et al. .19 sustained" and imposes a minimum damages amount should plaintiff prove the elements of her claim. Plaintiffs reference, at p. 13 of her response, to the fact that the legislature eliminated a proposed three-fold damages provision in favor of the "actual damages" language also supports Defendant's position. Remember, this statute was enacted as part of the criminal statutory scheme to punish those who sexually abuse and exploit children. In addition to facing the payment of "actual damages" to a minor/person who suffered personal injury as a result of predicate act violation, such an individual also faces criminal prosecution and the additional accompanying penalties of spending many years in jail. Despite Plaintiff's attempted reliance on the legislative discussions and history prior to the passage of §2255, the ultimate decision is reflected in the language of the statute itself which allows for the recovery of "actual damages," and does not include punitive damages. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages under 18 U.S.C. §2255 is required to be dismissed/stricken. VI. Count XXXI — "Sexual Battery" is required to be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. In the alternative, Plaintiff should be required to more definitely state whether she is attempting to allege a claim under Florida common or statutory law, or some federal law, and further allege the required elements and factual allegations. (Response, Part IV, pp. 15-161 In her response, at p. 16, Plaintiff claims that "Count XXXI — Sexual Battery° is brought pursuant to Florida common law. Defendant stands on his original motion. If Plaintiff Is proceeding under Florida common law, then she should more definitely state such cause of action pleading the requisite elements of a common law sexual battery EFTA00175366

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 21 of 25 MIv. Epstein, at al. Page 21 By: ROBERT D. TTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No 224162 rcritAbcIclaw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mpikeRbcIclaw.com BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 giltF axhon e ch, FL 33401 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) See 18 U.S.C. §27074, of the Stored Communications Act for provision at issue. Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Part I. Crimes Chapter 121. Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access § 2707. Civil action (a) Cause of action.--Except as provided in section 2703(e), any provider of electronic communication service, subscriber, or other person aggrieved by any violation of this chapter in which the conduct constituting the violation is engaged in with a knowing or intentional state of mind may, in a civil action, recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. (b) Relief.--In a civil action under this section, appropriate relief includes-- (1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; (2) damages under subsection (c); and (3) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (c) Damages.--The court may assess as damages in a civil action under this EFTA00175367

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 23 of 25 v. Epstein, et al. 1.23 functions of the officer or governmental entity making the disclosure, is a violation of this chapter. This provision shall not apply to information previously lawfully disclosed (prior to the commencement of any civil or administrative proceeding under this chapter) to the public by a Federal, State, or local governmental entity or by the plaintiff in a civil action under this chapter. 2 See §552a(g)(4), in bold, for relevant section of statute. Title 5. Government Organization and Employees Part I. The Agencies Generally Chapter 5. Administrative Procedure Subchapter II. Administrative Procedure *§ 552a. Records maintained on individuals (g)(1) Civil remedies.--Whenever any agency (A) makes a determination under subsection (d)(3) of this section not to amend an individual's record in accordance with his request, or fails to make such review in conformity with that subsection; (B) refuses to comply with an individual request under subsection (d)(1) of this section; (C) fails to maintain any record concerning any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any determination relating to the qualifications, character, rights, or opportunities of, or benefits to the individual that may be made on the basis of such record, and consequently a determination is made which is adverse to the individual; or (D) fails to comply with any other provision of this section, or any rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual, the individual may bring a civil action against the agency, and the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction in the matters under the provisions of this subsection. (2)(A) In any suit brought under the provisions of subsection (g)(1)(A) of this section, the court may order the agency to amend the individual's record In accordance with his request or in such other way as the court may direct. In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo. EFTA00175368

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 25 of 25 v. Epstein, et al. 1.5 (Emphasis addled). EFTA00175369

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 1 of 91 VS. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff(s), alY EPSTEIN and Defendant(s). FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue COMES NOW the Plaintiff, a, and brings this First Amended Complaint against the Defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN and an and states as follows: 1. This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 2. This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name in order to protect the identity of the Plaintiff, a, because this Complaint makes allegation of sexual assault and child abuse of a then minor. 3. At all times material to this cause of action, the Plaintiff, was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. EFTA00175370

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 3 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, residence by the Defendant's employees and assistants. When the employees and assistants left the then minor Plaintiff and other minor girls alone in a room at the Defendant's mansion, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, himself would appear, remove his clothing, and direct the then minor Plaintiff to remove her clothing. He would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts, including, but not limited to, masturbation, touching of the then minor Plaintiff's breasts and buttock, and solicitation and enticement of the then minor Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with another female in JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S presence. 11. The Plaintiff, , was the first brought to the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, mansion in late May or early June of 2002, when she was fifteen-years old and in middle school. 12. The Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, a wealthy financier with a lavish home, significant wealth, a network of assistants and employees, used his resources and his influence over a vulnerable minor child to engage in a systematic pattern of sexually exploitive behavior. 13. Beginning in approximately late May or early June of 2002, and continuing until approximately August of 2003, the Defendant coerced and enticed the Impressionable, vulnerable, and economically deprived then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct. These acts occurred, on average, one to three times per week from late May or early June of 2002 until August of 2003. At a bare minimum, 3 EFTA00175371

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 5 of 91 Mt vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint exploitation of minor children, prostitution, sexual performance by a child, lewd and lascivious assaults, sexual battery, contributing the delinquency of a minor and other crimes, specifically including, but not limited to, those crimes designated in 18 USC §2241, §2242, §2243, §2421, and §2423, criminal offenses outlined In Chapter 800 of the Federal Codes, as well as those designated in Florida Statutes §796.03, §796.07, §796.045, §796.04, §39.01; and §827.04. 16. The above-described acts took place in Palm Beach County, Florida, at the residence of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Any assertions by the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, that he was unaware of the age of the then minor Plaintiff are belled by his actions and rendered irrelevant by the provisions of applicable Florida Statutes concerning the sexual exploitation and abuse of a minor child. The Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, at all times material to this cause of action, knew and should have known of the Plaintiff, .'s minority. 17. In June 2008, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the purpose of prostitution. 18. As a condition of that plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for numerous federal offenses, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, additionally entered into an agreement with the 5 EFTA00175372

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 7 of 91 Case o.: Epstein, et al. Case o.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 21. In late May or early June of 2002, . was first introduced to Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN. . was brought to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence by a female friend of hers. sat on the couch while the female friend took off her own clothes, mounted JEFFREY EPSTEIN who was wearing only a towel and lying on a table, and performed a sexual act upon JEFFREY EPSTEIN in the presence of In exchange for her participation as an observer of JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S lewd and lascivious conduct, was paid $300 by JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 22. As a condition of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's criminal plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant for numerous federal offenses, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government to the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in 7 EFTA00175373

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 9 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff= will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the PlaintiffM., demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT II Cause of Action Pursuant to 18 USC §2255 June 2002- Incident 2 26. The Plaintiff, , adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 above. 27. Approximately one week after the first incident, . received a telephone call from JEFFREY EPSTEIN requesting that she return to his residence. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to undress to her brassiere and underwear and to provide him with a massage. At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in 's presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $300 for this encounter. 9 EFTA00175374

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 11 of 91 IIIII. vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 30. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, Ill.., and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, MI. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, , has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, controlling, manipulating and coercing her into a perverse and unconventional way of life for a minor. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and the Plaintiff, , will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff, has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn Income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, , will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ., demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further 11 EFTA00175375

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 13 of 91 It. vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 35. The Plaintiff,., was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and the United States Government. 36. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, ., and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, C.M.A. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, , has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, 13 EFTA00175376

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 15 of 91 . vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 38. The Plaintiff, IS, adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 above. 39. For the second time in July of 2002, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor . At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in 's presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid in excess of $200 for this encounter. 40. As a condition of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's criminal plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant for numerous federal offenses, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government to the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in 15 EFTA00175377

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 17 of 91 C.M.A. vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRNJOHNSON First Amended Complaint has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These Injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff,-., will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, , demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT V Cause of Action Pursuant to 18 USC §2255 August of 2002 — Incident 1 44. The Plaintiff, ., adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 above. 45. In August of 2002, . again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in 's presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid in excess of $200 for this encounter. 17 EFTA00175378

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 19 of 91 al . vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 48. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, ., and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff,' 49. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, at , has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, controlling, manipulating and coercing her into a perverse and unconventional way of life for a minor. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and the Plaintiff, , will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff, has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, ., will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, , demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further 19 EFTA00175379

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 21 of 91 " vs. Epstein, et al. No.; 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom It was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 53. The Plaintiff,., was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and the United States Government. 54. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, , and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, 55. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, , has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and 21 EFTA00175380

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 23 of 91 !t vs. Epstein, et al. o.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRAJJOHNSON First Amended Complaint 57. In September of 2002, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself In 's presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid in excess of $200 for this encounter. 58. As a condition of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's criminal plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant for numerous federal offenses, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government to the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of Implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any Judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens If any a Plaintiff must meet, shalt consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 23 EFTA00175381

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 25 of 91 NB. vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff,IIII., will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff,., demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT VIII Cause of Action Pursuant to 18 USC §2266 September of 2002 — Incident 2 62. The Plaintiff, IIII., adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 above. 63. For the second time in September of 2002, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in .'s presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid in excess of $200 for this encounter. 25 EFTA00175382

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 27 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 66. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, MI 67. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, MI, has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, controlling, manipulating and coercing her into a perverse and unconventional way of life for a minor. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and the Plaintiff, al, will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff, has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, IIII., will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, IIII., demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further 27 EFTA00175383

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 29 of 91 . vs. Epstein, et al. ase No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARFtA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 71. The Plaintiff, ., was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and the United States Government. 72. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, ., and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, 73. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, ., has In the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and 29 EFTA00175384

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 31 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRAIJOHNSON First Amended Complaint 74. The Plaintiff, ea, adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 above. 75. For the second time in October of 2002, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor MI At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in is presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid III in excess of $200 for this encounter. 76. As a condition of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's criminal plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant for numerous federal offenses, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government to the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of Individuals whom It was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the Intent of the parties to place these identified victims in 31 EFTA00175385

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 33 of 91 Elt. vs. Epstein, et at. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT XI Cause of Action Pursuant to 18 USC §2255 November of 2002 — Incident 1 80. The Plaintiff, In, adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 above. 81. In November of 2002, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in 's presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid in excess of $200 for this encounter. 33 EFTA00175386

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 35 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 84. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as If he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, MI, and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, 85. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, controlling, manipulating and coercing her into a perverse and unconventional way of life for a minor. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and the Plaintiff, , will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff, In, has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, MI, will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ., demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further 35 EFTA00175387

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 37 of 91 Mt vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 89. The Plaintiff, ., was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and the United States Government. 90. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, , and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, 91. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and 37 EFTA00175388

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 39 of 91 ... vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARFtA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 93. In December of 2002, .. again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor... At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid C.M.A. in excess of $200 for this encounter. 94. As a condition of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's criminal plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant for numerous federal offenses, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government to the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of an offense enumerated In Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any Judicial authority Interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these Identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 39 EFTA00175389

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 41 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, , will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, mg, demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT XIV Cause of Action Pursuant to 18 USC 42255 December of 2002 — Incident 2 98. The Plaintiff, ., adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 above. 99. For the second time in December of 2002, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in I.M.A.'s presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid . in excess of $200 for this encounter. 41 EFTA00175390

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 43 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRAIJOHNSON First Amended Complaint 102. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, 103. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, , has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, controlling, manipulating and coercing her into a perverse and unconventional way of life for a minor. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and the Plaintiff, MI, will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff, has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, IN, will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, IN., demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further 43 EFTA00175391

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 45 of 91 vs. Epstein, et at ase No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 107. The Plaintiff, ., was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and the United States Government. 108. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, ., and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, 109. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, ., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and 45 EFTA00175392

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 47 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. ase No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 111. For the second time In January of 2003, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor'''. At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in In.'s presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid. in excess of $200 for this encounter. 112, As a condition of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's criminal plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant for numerous federal offenses, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government to the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these Identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 47 EFTA00175393

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 49 of 91 mi. vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These Injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, ., will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, le., demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a Jury. COUNT XVII Cause of Action Pursuant to 18 USC 42255 February of 2003 — incident 1 116. The Plaintiff, ., adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 above. 117. In February of 2003, . again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in .'s presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid . in excess of $200 for this encounter. 49 EFTA00175394

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 51 of 91 Mt. vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRAJJOHNSON First Amended Complaint 120. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, 1.1., and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff,. 121. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, mi., has in the past suffered, and will In the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, Invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, controlling, manipulating and coercing her into a perverse and unconventional way of life for a minor. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and the Plaintiff, M . , will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, IIII., will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ., demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further 51 EFTA00175395

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 53 of 91 MI vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name In an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the Intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 125. The Plaintiff, ., was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated In Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and the United States Government. 126. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, ., and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, 127. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, C.M.A., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and 53 EFTA00175396

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 55 of 91 Ilkivs. Epstein, et al. Case o.; 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 129. In March of 2003, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in 's presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid . in excess of $200 for this encounter. 130. As a condition of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's criminal plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant for numerous federal offenses, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government to the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 55 EFTA00175397

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 57 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. ase No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRNJOHNSON First Amended Complaint loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, , will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ., demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT XX Cause of Action Pursuant to 18 USC §2265 March of 2003 — Incident 2 134. The Plaintiff, ., adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 above. 135. For the second time in March of 2003, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in .'s presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid in excess of $200 for this encounter. 57 EFTA00175398

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 59 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 138. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, III., and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the 139. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, is., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, controlling, manipulating and coercing her into a perverse and unconventional way of life for a minor. The then minor Plaintiff Incurred medical and psychological expenses and the Plaintiff, ME., will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff, Mi n has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, ., will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, , demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further 59 EFTA00175399

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 61 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. My judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less? 143. The Plaintiff, ., was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and the United States Government. 144. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is In the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, ., and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, 145. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, ., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and 61 EFTA00175400

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 63 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-C IV-MARRA/JOH NSON First Amended Complaint 147. For the second time in April of 2003, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor . At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in .'s presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid . in excess of $200 for this encounter. 148. As a condition of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's criminal plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant for numerous federal offenses, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government to the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under section 2255 as she would have had, If Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of Implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority Interpreting this provision, Including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 63 EFTA00175401

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 65 of 91 I vs. Epstein, et al. PNo.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MB, demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT XXIII Cause of Action Pursuant to 18 USC 82255 May of 2003 — Incident 1 152. The Plaintiff, C.M.A., adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 abovb. 153. In May of 2003, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in all's presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid in excess of $200 for this encounter. 65 EFTA00175402

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 67 of 91 la ys. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 156. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, MI., and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the 157. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, mi., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, controlling, manipulating and coercing her into a perverse and unconventional way of life for a minor. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and the Plaintiff, will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff, has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, ., will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, , demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further 67 EFTA00175403

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 69 of 91 . vs. Epstein, et al ase No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom It was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 161. The Plaintiff, C.M.A., was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and the United States Government. 162. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, ., and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, 163. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, ., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and 69 EFTA00175404

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 71 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 165. In June of 2003, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor IN At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in 's presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid in excess of $200 for this encounter. 166. As a condition of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's criminal plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant for numerous federal offenses, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government to the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 71 EFTA00175405

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 73 of 91 Mt vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff..., will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, lilt, demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT XXVI Cause of Action Pursuant to 18 USC June of 2003 — Incident 2 170. The Plaintiff, ., adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 above. 171. For the second time in June of 2003, again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in .'s presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid C.M.A. in excess of $200 for this encounter. 73 EFTA00175406

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 75 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 174. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, , and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, MI 175. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, I IIII, has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, controlling, manipulating and coercing her into a perverse and unconventional way of life for a minor. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and the Plaintiff, will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff, MI, has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, IS, demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further 75 EFTA00175407

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 77 of 91 MIvs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 179. The Plaintiff, , was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and the United States Government. 180. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, ., and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, 181. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, ., has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and 77 EFTA00175408

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 79 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. Case No.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 183. For the second time in July of 2003,... again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request. On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed a to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor... At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid. in excess of $200 for this encounter. 184. As a condition of the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN's criminal plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant for numerous federal offenses, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government to the following: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an Indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 79 EFTA00175409

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 81 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, , will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT XXIX Cause of Action Pursuant to 18 USC 82255 August of 2003 — Incident 1 188. The Plaintiff, MI, adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 19 above. 189. In August of 2003, MI again returned to JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S residence at his request On this occasion, JEFFREY EPSTEIN directed to fully undress and to provide him with a massage. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, fondled the breasts and buttocks of the then minor At the conclusion of the massage, JEFFREY EPSTEIN masturbated himself in presence. JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid in excess of $200 for this encounter. 81 EFTA00175410

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 83 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRAJJOHNSON First Amended Complaint 192. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, MI. 193. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and other damages associated with Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, controlling, manipulating and coercing her into a perverse and unconventional way of life for a minor. The then minor Plaintiff incurred medical and psychological expenses and the Plaintiff, is , will in the future suffer additional medical and psychological expenses. The Plaintiff, has suffered a loss of income, a loss of the capacity to earn income in the future, and a loss of the capacity to enjoy life. These injuries are permanent in nature and the Plaintiff, , will continue to suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ., demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further 83 EFTA00175411

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 85 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name in an indictment as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining evidentiary burdens if any a Plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 197. The Plaintiff, , was a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and the United States Government. 198. Pursuant to the agreement, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, is in the same position as if he had been tried and convicted of the sexual offenses committed against the Plaintiff, and as such he must effectively admit liability unto the Plaintiff, C.M.A. 199. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, being committed against the then minor Plaintiff, has in the past suffered, and will in the future suffer, physical injury, pain and 85 EFTA00175412

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2009 Page 87 of 91 vs. Epstein, et al. 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON First Amended Complaint 201. Between late May or early June of 2002 and August of 2003, Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, engaged in dozens of illegal and depraved sexual acts against Plaintiff, 202. As described more fully in the above paragraphs, Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, intentionally inflicted harmful and/or offensive sexual contact on the person of 203. Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, tortuous commission of sexual battery upon III were done willfully and maliciously. 204. As a direct and proximate result of JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S battery on she has suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and emotional damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, demands judgment against the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for compensatory damages of at least the minimum amount provided by law, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, and hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. COUNT XXXII Conspiracy to Commit Tortious Assault Against Defendant, 205. Plaintiff incorporates into this count the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 19. 87 EFTA00175413