EpsteinProject.org

Court records

034_2

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 1:19-cv-10788-GHW-DCF          Document 34    Filed 04/07/20   Page 1 of 16




                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

TEALA DAVIES,

                         Plaintiff,

   v.                                            Case No. 1:19-cv-10788 (GHW) (DCF)

DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN, as
executors of the ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
                         Defendants.




          DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
           OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT




                            TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
                                 875 Third Avenue
                             New York, New York 10022
                                 Tel: 212-704-6000
                                Fax: 212-704-6288

                               Attorneys for Defendants
      Case 1:19-cv-10788-GHW-DCF                            Document 34                Filed 04/07/20             Page 2 of 16


                                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                                  Page

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 1
I.        THIS MOTION IS PROCEDURALLY PROPER AND RIPE,
          REGARDLESS OF ITS TITLE ..................................................................................... 1
II.       PLAINTIFF INVOKES INAPPLICABLE LIMITATIONS STATUTES
          AND TOLLING PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................... 3
III.      PLAINTIFF DISREGARDS BLACK-LETTER LAW ESTABLISHING
          PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE BARRED HERE. .......................................................... 7
          A.         PLAINTIFF’S BANKS ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS
                     ARE ERRONEOUS

[…]

Open in the archive