EpsteinProject.org

Court records

2020.09.08.002_Opposition

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.

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
  OFTHE VIRGIN ISLANDS



  FILED
 September 08, 2020

 TAMARA CHARLES                       IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
CLERK OF THE COURT                         DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

                                                                              CIVIL CASE NO.: ST-20-CV-155

              GHISLAINE MAXWELL,

                                  Plaintiff,

              vs.

              ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
              DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as
              EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY
              E. EPSTEIN, RICHARD D. KAHN, in his
              capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE
              OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and NES, LLC, a
              New York Limited Liability Company,

                          Defendants.
              ________________________________________

                         PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

                         Plaintiff GHISLAINE MAXWELL (“Plaintiff”), by counsel, pursuant to V.I.R.Civ.P. 12,

              hereby opposes the Motion to Dismiss1 (the “Motion to Dismiss”) filed by Defendants DARREN

              K. INDYKE (“Indyke”) and RICHARD D. KAHN (“Kahn”) (collectively, the “Co-Executors”),

              in their capacity as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the “Estate”), and on behalf

              of the Estate and NES, LLC (“NES”).

              I.         PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

                         Defendants’ Motion to dismiss must be denied because its primary basis is now moot and

              it secondary arguments have no sufficient basis.

                         First, Co-Executors’ argument that Plaintiff’s claim against them is premature in

              violation of 15 V.I.C § 606(a) is no longer viable. While the Co-Executors argue that they may


                         1
                             The Motion to Dismiss is cited herein by page nu

[…]

Open in the archive