EpsteinProject.org

Court records

022_15

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 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2008 Page 1 of 8




                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                           CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON

     JANE DOE, a/k/a,
     JANE DOE NO. 1,

              Plaintiff,

     vs.

     JEFFREY EPSTEIN, HALEY
     ROBSON, and SARAH KELLEN,

           Defendants.
     ________________________________/

                     PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO REMAND

              Plaintiff Jane Doe, a Florida citizen, properly sued Haley Robson, also a Florida

     citizen, in this action. Contrary to Defendants’ contention, Defendant Robson was not

     fraudulently joined because, when viewing the factual allegations in the light most

     favorable to Plaintiff and resolving issues of Florida substantive law in favor of Plaintiff,

     it is clear that Plaintiff has cognizable causes of action against Defendant Robson for civil

     conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil RICO. Accordingly, the

     Court should remand this action to Florida state court.


           A. Plaintiff is a Florida citizen

              Plaintiff alleged in her complaint and testified in deposition that she is a Florida

     resident. (Amended Complaint ¶ 1, DE 1, pp. 301; Deposition of Jane Doe, DE 1, pp.

     31-32, 5:14-18, 6:6-10). In their notice of removal, Defendants cite a newspaper article

     (from the same newspaper that Defendants chide Plaintiff for citing with regard to

     Defendant Robson describing herself as the Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss) in which it
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2008 Page 2 of 8




     is reported that Plaintiff had moved to another state in order to intimate that Plaintiff

     made fraudulent allegations regarding her residency. (DE 1, p. 7 n.6). Defendants then

     chide Plaintiff in their opposition 

[…]

Open in the archive