009_1

Format

pdf

Set

Court Records

Text

Searchable

View at the original source

Text as released

Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.

Case 9:10-cv-80447-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2010 Page 1 of 13




                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFFLORIDA

                          CASE NO: 10-80447-CV-MARRA/JOHNSON


     C. L.

                    Plaintiff,


     vs.

     JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

                    Defendant.
     ---~~----------'I


             PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTEPSTEIN'S
     MOTION FORMORE DEFINJTE STATEMENT.& TO STRIKE, & TO DISMISS
          DIRECTED TO COUNTIII OF PLAINTIFF C.L.'S COMPLAINT

             Plaintiff, C. L., by and through her undersigned counsel, files this Response to

     Defendant Epstein's Motion For More Definite Statement & To Strike, & To Dismi.ss

     Directed To Count Ill Of Plaintiff C.L. 'S Complaint. ("Motion").         First, Defendant

     argues that Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed because the predicate
                                     '

     act relied upop, 1.8 U.S.C. § 2252 A(g), did not come into effect until July 27, 2006, well

     after Defendant's offensive conduct occurred. Defendant then seeks a more definite

     statement,. i. e;, for Plaintiff to allege her date of birth in order to establish when she

     reached 18, the age of majority under state and federal law. Finally, Defendant seeks to

     strike paragraphs 8 through 15 of Plaintiffs Complaint as immaterial and impertinent.

             Defendant's motion should be denied for the reasons set forth below:




                                                 1
Case 9:10-cv-80447-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2010 Page 2 of 13




     I.       Count III _Should Not Be Dismissed, As Retroactive.Application Of§ 2252
              A(G)(l) And (2) Does Not Violate Constitutional Ex Post Facto Prohibitions

              In moving to dismiss, Defendant focused on the issue of whether Plaintiff may

     bring the claim set forth in 

[…]

Open in the archive