EFTA00221192.pdf
PDF Source (No Download)
Extracted Text (OCR)
Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM
Document 12
Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2008
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA
JANE DOE NO. 7,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Defendant, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, (EPSTEIN), by and through his undersigned
attorneys, files his reply to Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Motions To
Dismiss, dated October 31, 2008, and states:
Although Plaintiffs, Jane Doe Nos. 2 through 7, are separate and distinct
persons, in separate and distinct actions, with separate and distinct facts and
circumstances pertaining to the claims each is attempting to allege, Plaintiffs' counsel
has filed a broad brush, identical response to Defendant's motions to dismiss and for
more definite statement which were filed in each of the actions. As pointed out in
Defendant's previously filed motions, there are factual distinctions in the actions and the
allegations in Plaintiffs' attempts to assert the claims labeled as Count I — "Sexual
Assault and Battery," and Count III - "Coercion and Enticement to Sexual Activity In
Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2422." It is essential that each of the actions and the respective
complaints filed therein are examined and treated as separate and distinct actions in
deciding the respective legal issues and positions asserted.
EFTA00221192
Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM
Document 12
Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2008
Page 2 of 3
Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein
Page 2
As noted, Defendant's motion is directed to Count I and III of the respective
complaints. Contrary to each Plaintiffs assertion, Defendant does not concede that
Plaintiff has sufficiently plead the elements required to assert claims in Count I for
"Sexual Assault and Battery" and in Count Ill pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§2422, and
Defendant has not "misconstrued" the pleading standard formulated by the United
States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In
discussing Twomblv, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d
1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulation of
the pleading specificity standard is that 'stating such a claim requires a complaint with
enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest' the required element? In order to
sufficiently allege the claim, the complaint is required to identify "facts that are
suggestive enough to render [the element] plausible." Watts. 495 F.3d at 1296 (quoting
Twomblv , 127 S.Ct. at 1965). As stated in Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has
not met this standard requiring the pleading of facts to suggest the elements of the
claims she is attempting to assert. In other words, Plaintiff is required to plead facts that
suggest each element of the claim she is attempting to assert, as opposed to a
generalized pleading.
Accordingly, Defendant relies on the legal positions and
argument in his motion, rather than reargue what has already been stated.
Finally, the letter attached as an Exhibit to Plaintiffs response is not dispositive of
the issue of whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim in Count III pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §2422.
EFTA00221193
Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM
Document 12
Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2008
Page 3 of 3
Jane Doe No. 7 v. Epstein
Page 3
Wherefore, Defendant requests that this Court grant his motion to dismiss and for
more definite statement directed to Plaintiffs Complaint.
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being
served this day on all counsel of reco&identified on the f (lowing Service List in the
manner specified by CM/ECF on this Nrday of T11O
2008:
Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.
Jeffrey Marc Herman, Esq.
Stuart S. Mermelstein Es
counser or Kaustilt—Jane Doe #7
Respectfully submitted,
By:
ROBE
JR., ESQ.
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
EFTA00221194
Document Preview
PDF source document
This document was extracted from a PDF. No image preview is available. The OCR text is shown on the left.
This document was extracted from a PDF. No image preview is available. The OCR text is shown on the left.
Extracted Information
Document Details
| Filename | EFTA00221192.pdf |
| File Size | 305.4 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 85.0% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 4,206 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-11T11:54:35.583892 |