EFTA00313588.pdf
PDF Source (No Download)
Extracted Text (OCR)
Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2008 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-80069-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE NO. I, by and through
JANE DOE's FATHER as parent and natural
guardian, and JANE DOE's FATHER, and
JANE DOE's STEPMOTHER, individually,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING
JANE DOE NO. 1 REACHING AGE OF MAJORITY
Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 1, by and through Jane Doe's Father as parent and natural guardian,
and Jane Doe's Father and Jane Doe's Stepmother, individually, submit this Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Jane Doe No. 1 Reaching Age of Majority, as
follows:
I.
Introduction
This action alleges the sexual assault of Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 1 ("Jane Doe") by the
Defendant when she was 14 years old. The Motion to Stay Proceedings filed by Jane Doe's Mother
is without basis and should be stricken or denied for the following reasons:
I.
It fails to include or be accompanied by a memorandum of law, in violation of
7.I (A)(1). This failure is particularly glaring here, as there is no obvious or apparent
legal basis for the stay sought by Jane Doe's Mother, and in preparing this Memorandum of Law in
Opposition, Plaintiff is left to guess at the authorities relied upon by Jane Doe's Mother.
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A.
www.hermanlaw.com
- I -
EFTA00313588
Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2008 Page 2 of 5
2.
The Motion to Stay was not served on all parties as shown on the Motion's Certificate
of Service. Only Plaintiff's counsel was served with the Motion. As a result, notice of the relief
sought by Jane Doe's Mother is fatally defective.
3.
Jane Doe's Father, by Court Order, was awarded full custody of the Minor Plaintiff,
and is thus her sole natural guardian. Jane Doe's Mother is not Jane Doe's natural guardian under
Florida law, and thus has no standing to seek a stay of this action on behalf of Jane Doe.
4.
A stay would serve no constructive purpose or function in this litigation, but would
only unnecessarily delay this case.
Based on any or all of the foregoing grounds, as further discussed below, the Motion to Stay
should be denied.
II.
Argument
THE MOTION TO STAY IS PROCEDURALLY
AND SUBSTANTIVELY DEFECTIVE
A.
The Motion to Stay Violates the Local Rules
and Was Served Without Sufficient Notice
Under
7.I (A)(1), "[e]very motion when filed shall include or be accompanied
by a memorandum of law citing supporting authorities. . ." I No such memorandum of law was
filed with the Motion to Stay. Plaintiff is prejudiced by this omission because he has had no notice
of what authorities Jane Doe's Mother relies upon for the relief sought in her Motion. As a result,
the Motion to Stay is defective and should be stricken.
The Motion to Stay also raises due process concerns because it was not served on all parties
according to the Certificate of Service accompanying the Motion. The Defendant has not yet filed
an appearance in the case, and his response to the Complaint is not yet due. The Motion to Stay is
' The stated exceptions to Rule 7.1(A)(1) are inapplicable here.
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A.
www.hermanlaw.com
- 2 -
EFTA00313589
Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2008 Page 3 of 5
therefore premature and defective for lack of notice.
B.
Jane Doe's Mother is Not Jane Doe's Natural Guardian, and
Therefore Has No Standing to Seek a Stav on Her Behalf
The Motion to Stay and supporting Affidavit of Jane Doe's Mother contain the following
false and misleading statements:
a. "Jane Doe No. I is a minor child . . who is under the joint
control of her parents and natural guardians, Jane Doe's Father
and Jane Doe's Mother, who are divorced." (Motion to Stay
Proceedings,1 1) (emphasis supplied).
b. "I am the mother and natural guardian for Jane Doe No. 1...."
(Affidavit of
Exh. "A" to Motion to Stay,
1 1) (emphasis supplied).
Jane Doe's Mother does not have "joint control" or legal custody of Jane Doe, and is not her
natural guardian under Florida law. Jane Doe's Mother and Jane Doe's Father entered into a
Custodial Parent Modification dated March 28, 2006. This Modification was granted by Court
Order dated April 25, 2006. (A copy of the Custodial Parent Modification and the Order Granting
Custodial Parent Modification are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "A").2 The Custodial
Parent Modification states as follows: "Full Parental Custody of both minor children shall be
granted to former husband [Jane Does' Father]." (Custodial Parent Modification,1 3) (emphasis
supplied).
Under Florida statutory law, in the case of a dissolved marriage, only the parent awarded
custody can be the natural guardian of the minor child: "If the marriage between the parents is
dissolved, the natural guardianship belongs to the parent to whom custody of the child is
awarded." §744.301(1), Fla. Stat. (emphasis supplied). It is therefore abundantly clear that Jane
The names of Jane Doe and Jane Doe's Father are redacted from Exhibit "A" hereto to protect the
Minor Plaintiff's anonymity. (See Complaint 1 4).
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A.
www.hermanlaw.com
- 3 -
EFTA00313590
Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2008 Page 4 of 5
Doe's Father, as the custodial parent, is the natural guardian, and the only natural guardian, of Jane
Doe. As the natural guardian, Jane Doe's Father may sue on behalf of Jane Doe. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
17(b) (providing that capacity to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the state in which
the district court is held). Because Jane Doe's Father, as her natural guardian, represents her
interests in this lawsuit, there is no legal basis for Jane Doe's Mother to assert the right to represent
Jane Doe. Jane Doe's Mother lacks standing to seek a stay or other relief from this Court on behalf
of Jane Doe.
C.
There Is No Legal Basis for a Stay
A stay of proceedings may be appropriate in a situation where it will avoid piecemeal
litigation, conserve judicial resources, aid in the comprehensive disposition of the litigation, or serve
as a means of controlling the district court's docket. See American Manufacturers Mutual Ins. Co.
v. Edward,. Stone Jr. & Assoc., 743 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1984). For example, a stay may be
considered in a case where there is another pending lawsuit or administrative proceeding addressing
the identical issues. See Ortega Trujillo v. Conver & Co. Communications. Inc. 225 F.3d 1262
(11th Cir. 2000). Even then, a case in federal court should not be stayed absent "exceptional
circumstances." American Manufacturers, 743 F.2d at 1524-1525. Here, the only conceivable
purpose that would be served by a stay is delay, which would be to Jane Doe's prejudice. A stay
would not be in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, and would not aid in a resolution of
this litigation. Because there is no legitimate argument for a stay in this case, the Motion should be
denied.
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN. P. A.
www.hermanlaw.com
-4-
EFTA00313591
Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2008 Page 5 of 5
III.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Stay is defective, deficient and meritless. Denial of
the Motion is appropriate on multiple, alternative grounds. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request
that the Motion to Stay be denied.
Dated: February 13, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
By:
s/ Jeffrey M. Herman
Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647)
Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245)
am
orownz
Bar o. 376980)
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe et al.
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
Miami, Florida 33160
Tel:
Fax
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 13, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this
day on the following, via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF:
Theodore Jon Leopold
HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN. P. A.
www.hermanlaw.com
- 5 -
EFTA00313592
Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 7-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2008 Page 1 of 6
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL
COURT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
FAMILY DIVISION
CASE NO.
IN RE: THE FORMER MARRIAGE OF
Petitioner/Former Wife,
VS.
Respondent/Former Husband
CUSTODIAL PARENT MODIFICATION
THIS AGREEMENT is made in Palm Beach County. Florida betwee
hereinafter referred to as the "Former Wife" and'
hereinafter referred to as "Former Husband".
In consideration of the mutual undertakings herein contained, the parties agree
as follows:
1.
STATUS OF PARTIES:
The parties were divorced on June 18, 1991.
The custodial parent circumstances of the parties have changed, they desire to
adjust their responsibilities for custodial parent of their minor children.
011 .9.,
i st 4.t
cp
.10
It:- and
EXHIBIT
A
84 :1 Yid CIZLo9oul
•
EFTA00313593
Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 7-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2008 Page 2 of 6
ands
ase No.
2. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT AND CONSIDERATION:
The purpose of this Agreement is to effect a complete settlement, with reference
to the parties's obligations with respect to the visitation and parental responsibility of the
two minor children,
and
3. CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN:
Full Parental Custody of both minor children shall be granted to Former Husband. Both
minor children shall reside with Former Husband in Florida.
4. VISITATION: .1
Former Wife shall be entitled to open communication between herself and minor
children. Former Wife shall receive visitation as often as children desire but shall be at
minimum once a year. All plane fare for said visitation shall be at the expense of Former
Wife except in such case Former Husband shall for any reason need children to
commute to Former Wife in Georgia for personal, emergency, or necessary reasons then
Former Husband shall pay for said plane fare.
5. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY:
Former Husband shall hold complete financial responsibity for both minor
children including but not limited to all medical, dental, vision, etc. care and or insurance.
Former Husband shall be granted both Florida Prepaid College Programs for both minor
children and be responsible for college tuition, etc. payments. Former Husband
shall claim both minor children on his personal income taxes beginning 2006 tax year.
-2-
EFTA00313594
Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 7-1 Entered on FLED Docket 02/13/2008 Page 3 of 6
IMMMarica
Case No.
6. AGREEMENT BINDING:
This Agreement and all the obligations and covenants hereunder shall bind the
parties hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
3
1:,
The parties represent to each other that:
A. The parties fully understand the facts as to their legal rights and
obligations. Each is signing the Agreement freely and voluntarily, intending to be
bound by it.
B. The laws of Florida shall govern the validity, construction,
interpretation and effect of this Agreement.
C. Neither party is represented by legal counsel.
8. PARAGRAPH HEADINGS:
Paragraph headings are provided for convenience in locating paragraphs and
are not intended to add or detract anything from language of the paragraphs.
-3-
EFTA00313595
Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 7-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2008 Page 4 of 6
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this
appeared
provided a valid Georgia Driver's License V , and who after being duly sworn, deposes and
says that she is Former Wife in the above and foregoing Agreement; that she has read the
foregoing Agreement and that she has executed the same freely and voluntarily for the
purposes therein expressed.
AlareA
day of,April, 2006, personally
who is personally known to me
or has
44Plit,tYfklett
13
• *.s
2009
i
41,6;ivut.
Nuitimitto
\ iitArlxittiSOthits
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
<3
t, A Nye; 0-
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this
day
2006, personally
appeared
who is personally known to me Vor has provided
a valid Florida Drivers License
, and who after being duly sworn, deposes and says that
he is Former husband in the above and foregoing Agreement; that he has read the foregoing
Agreement and that he has executed the same freely and voluntarily for the purposes therein
expressed.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: S A- 0 -7
Y'VETTE SOSA
NOTARY PUBLIC
-5-
COMMISSION NO. DD209030
EFTA00313596
Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 7-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2008 Page 5 of 6
LAVOGUE-SANDBERG and
Case No.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed and acknowledged this
Agreement in the presence of the witnesses signing below on this 2_2 day of
frtAeckt
Aprit'2006.
Signature fatness #1)
(Print) (Witness #1)
S
Li
(Print) (Witness #2)
-4-
EFTA00313597
Case 9:08-cv-80069-KAM Document 7-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2008 Page 6 of 6
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL COURT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
•
OF
e i oner ormer i e,
FAMILY DIVISION
CASE NO.
and
C.
Respondent/Former Husband
ORDER GRANTING CUSTODIAL PARENT MODIFICATION
COMES NOW before the court the CUTODIAL PARENT MODIFICATION and
the court having been advised that the parties are in agreement, it is:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that said Custodial Parent Modification be
GRANTED.
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this
ZS
day of April, 2006.
cc:
r
4,
__-
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
WILLAill J. BERGER
EFTA00313598
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 | EFTA00313588.pdf |
| File Size | 764.3 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 85.0% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 13,879 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-11T13:26:27.604557 |