Court records
- Format
- Set
- Court Records
- Text
- Searchable
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 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2009 Page 1 of 20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JANE DOE II ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, )
and SARAH KELLEN, )
)
Defendants. )
/
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, through counsel, opposes Defendant’s RICHARD EPSTEIN’s
Motion to Dismiss. Defendant’s argument for a dismissal is premised on the following: 1)
Plaintiff is not permitted to file a claim under Florida law in a State of Florida court and then
file a federal claim in a federal court; 2) the remedies amendment to 18 U.S.C.§2255 are
not retroactive based on the dates Defendant EPSTEIN is alleged to have violated the
statute; 3) damages under §2255 cannot be obtained on a per incident basis, but must
be lumped together into a single recovery despite multiple violations occurring in temporally
distinct time frames, and therefore being different incidents; 4) Plaintiff has failed to state a
cause of action under §2255 because she has failed to “allege facts constituting a predicate
act”; and 5) Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for conspiracy to violate §2255.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Defendant’s motion to dismiss must be denied unless it appears beyond doubt that
the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claims that would entitle her to relief.
[…]