Court records

036_11

Format: pdf
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 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 19




                             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 AMENDED1 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



          1
           As discussed at the hearing this morning before the Court, Plaintiff in this case
  is withdrawing the contention raised in the original memorandum, that Defendant
  EPSTEIN may not contest this Court’s jurisdiction based on the Non Prosecution
  Agreement (“NPA”). Although the State Court action is not a 

[…]

Open in the archive