062.pdf
139 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
5
Organizations
7
Locations
4
Events
7
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court document (motion for extension of time)
File Size:
139 KB
Summary
This document is a motion filed by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting an extension until December 15, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102. The reasons cited for the extension include ongoing resolution negotiations and questions arising from the 'implosion' of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA firm.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| JANE DOE No. 102 | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in the case Doe 102 v. Epstein
|
| JEFFREY EPSTEIN | Defendant |
Defendant in the case Doe 102 v. Epstein
|
| Robert D. Critton Jr. | Attorney for Defendant |
Signed the motion and listed as counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
|
| Robert C. Josefsberg | Counsel for Plaintiff |
Listed on the Service List
|
| Katherine W. Ezell | Counsel for Plaintiff |
Listed on the Service List
|
| Jack Alan Goldberger | Counsel for Defendant |
Listed on the Service List
|
| MICHAEL J. PIKE | Counsel for Defendant |
Listed as counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA |
Court where the case is filed
|
|
| Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA |
Law firm whose 'implosion' is cited as a reason for the extension
|
|
| Podhurst Orseck, P.A. |
Law firm representing the Plaintiff
|
|
| Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. |
Law firm representing the Defendant (listed on Service List)
|
|
| BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN |
Law firm representing the Defendant (listed at the end of the document)
|
Timeline (4 events)
December 15, 2009
Requested new deadline for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint.
December 2, 2009
Motion for Extension of Time filed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
May 1, 2009
Plaintiff filed a Complaint [DE 1].
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Locations (7)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the court
|
|
|
Address for Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
|
|
|
Address for Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
|
|
|
Address for BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
|
|
|
Address component for Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
|
|
|
Address component for Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
|
|
|
Address component for BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
|
Relationships (7)
Case filing 'JANE DOE No. 102, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant,'
Attorney for Defendant
Counsel for Plaintiff
Counsel for Plaintiff
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Both listed under BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN as counsel for Defendant
Key Quotes (1)
"The implosion of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA firm has raised certain questions for which defense counsel will request answers/information from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the Rothstein scheme/scandal prior to final resolution."Source
062.pdf
Quote #1
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document