015.pdf

Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 10-80309-CIV-

JANE DOE No. 103,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEFFERY EPSTEIN,

Defendant.
___________ ___;/

DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO AMEND DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS, & FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT &
STRIKE DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 103'S
COMPLAINT [dated 4/5/2010]

Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned
counsel, moves to amend by his previously filed Motion To Dismiss, & Motion For More
Definite Statement & Strike Directed To Plaintiff JANE DOE 103's Complaint,
(hereinafter "Motion To Dismiss"), dated and filed April 5, 2010. In support of his
motion, Defendant states:

1. On April 5, 2010, Defendant previously filed with this Court his Motion To
Dismiss. Defendant seeks dismissal of Count VI, which is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§2255, because Plaintiff is relying on a criminal predicate act enumerated in §2255 that
did not come into effect until after the alleged time period of the alleged conduct by
Defendant involving Plaintiff. 18 U.S.C. §2252A(g), the criminal statute relied upon by
Plaintiff in attempting to assert her §2255 claim in Count VI, was not enacted until 2006;
the allegedly violative conduct by Defendant occurred, according to Plaintiff's own

Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 2 of 4
allegations, beginning in January 2004 until approximately May 2005. As argued in
Defendant's motion to dismiss, Count VI is required to be dismissed because it violates
the constitutional principles against retroactivity. See pages 3-11 of Defendant's motion
to dismiss.

2. Defendant is not seeking to raise a new argument, but is seeking to clarify the
argument made in his motion to dismiss (pp. 3-11). Under the heading – "Motion To
Dismiss" – at page 3-4, in the first paragraph, Defendant states in part that - "However,
subsection (g) of §2252 was not added to the statute until 2006. Thus, to the extent that
Plaintiff is relying on the amended version of §2255, such reliance is improper and Count
VI is required to be dismissed as it relies on a statutory predicate act that did not exist at
the time of the alleged conduct."

3. Defendant seeks to add the following sentences (paragraph) after the first
paragraph, at page 4, to clarify the argument being made.

According to Plaintiff's allegations, the alleged conduct of EPSTEIN
directed to Plaintiff occurred beginning in January 2004 until
approximately May 2005. In Count VI, in attempting to assert a claim
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255, Plaintiff is relying on subsection, (g)(1) and
(2), of the criminal statute 18 U.S.C. §2252A as the requisite predicate act.
Subsection (g) of §2252A was not even in existence at the time of the
alleged conduct. Subsection (g) was enacted in 2006, effective July 27,
2006. See 2006 Amendments; Pub.L. 109-248, § 701, added subsec. (g).
18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A. As discussed more fully below herein, reliance on
subsection (g) violates the well entrenched constitutional principles
against retroactivity, and, thus, Count VI is required to be dismissed.

Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 3 of 4
4. Defendant also adds a sentence in the introductory paragraph of the Amended
Motion To Dismiss, attached hereto as Exhibit A, simply stating that it is an amended
motion.

5. Such amendment is in the interest of justice and will allow both the Court and the
Plaintiff to understand and address the argument made by Defendant in his motion to
dismiss.

6. Defendant further requests that the Amended Motion To Dismiss, Exhibit A
hereto, be deemed filed as of the date of this motion.

7. Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., Defendant sought the consent of the
opposing party as to the above amendment/supplement to his motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff's counsel did not oppose the amendment/supplement.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order
granting Defendant's motion and deeming as filed as of the date of this motion
Defendant's Amended Motion To Dismiss, & Motion For More Definite Statement &
Strike Directed To Plaintiff JANE DOE 103's Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

/s/ Robert D. Critton
Robert D. Critton, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant

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 record identified on the following Service List in
the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 12th day of April, 2010.

Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.

Case 9:10-cv-80309-KAM Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 4 of 4
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
305 358-2800
Fax: 305 358-2382
rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
kezell@podhurst.com
Counsel for Plaintiff

250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
561-659-8300
Fax: 561-835-8691
jagesg@bellsouth.net
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Robert D. Critton
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 224162
rcrit@bclclaw.com
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
mpike@bclclaw.com
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER &
COLEMAN
303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/515-3148 Fax
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)