EpsteinProject.org

Court records

061-01

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-07625-AJN-DCF
        Case  1:19-cv-10653-PAE-DCF Document
                                     Document61-1 Filed04/30/20
                                              39 Filed  04/30/20 Page
                                                                   Page
                                                                      1 of1 4of 4



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


    JANE DOE 15,

                                         Plaintiff,                      19 Civ. 10653 (PAE)
                         -v-
                                                                                ORDER
    DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN,
    as Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein,

                                         Defendants.


PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:

         In this diversity action, plaintiff Jane Doe 15 (“Doe”)1 brings claims of battery, assault,

and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, in

their capacities as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. These claims arise from Doe’s

allegations of sexual trafficking and abuse perpetrated against her by Epstein in 2004, when she

was age 15. Doe alleges that Doe visited Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in New York City,

where Epstein’s secretary photographed her and groomed her for future sexual exploitation; on

Epstein’s behalf, the secretary later invited Doe to visit Epstein at his ranch in New Mexico, and

arranged Doe’s visit. See Dkt. 1 (“Cmplt.”) ¶¶ 2–4, 25–26, 30–37. Epstein’s sexual abuse of

Doe occurred during the visit to the New Mexico ranch that ensued. Id. ¶¶ 5–6, 41–69.

         The defendants have filed a partial motion to dismiss, directed solely at Doe’s prayer for

punitive damages. They argue that New Mexico law governs Doe’s claims, and that under New

Mexico law, punitive damages are unavailable in a personal injury action against the personal




1
 

[…]

Open in the archive