Court records

029_10

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-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 1 of 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JANEDOENo. 101,
Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM
Plaintiff,

v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.

DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to

dismiss or, alternatively, for a more definite statement of, the First Amended Complaint. Fed. R.

Civ. RR. 12(b)(6) & 12(e) (2009); Loe. Rule 7.1 (S.D. Fla. 2009). In support, Defendant states:

Pleading Standard & Summary of Argument

The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 that

explicitly incorporate, and thus necessarily require Plaintiff to prove that Defendant is guilty of

violating, specific criminal prohibitions set forth in Title 18 of the U.S. Code. While the

Supreme Court has held that every complaint '"must contain something more than a statement of

facts that merely creates a suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action,'" Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and just last week made clear that "Twombly expounded

the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' and not just pleadings made in the context of an

antitrust dispute," Ashcroft v. Igbal, No. 07-1015 (U.S. May 18, 2009) (slip op. at 20) (quoting

Fed. R. Civ. P. I), the need to enforce these pleading requirements is especially acute in this

context. After all, the defendant in a § 2255 action is essentially being put on trial for violating

criminal laws, and the statutory penalty is obviously and intentionally

[…]