012.pdf
93.8 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order
File Size:
93.8 KB
Summary
A court order from December 23, 2019, in the case of Maria Farmer v. Indyke and Kahn. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ordered the striking of a specific allegation from the plaintiff's complaint which stated that Maria Farmer observed Alan Dershowitz at 'the mansion' going upstairs at the same time as young girls. The judge ruled the allegation immaterial to the specific case at hand and noted that the veracity of such claims was better suited for the separate 'Giuffre v. Dershowitz' litigation.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maria Farmer | Plaintiff |
Subject of the complaint alleging observations of Dershowitz.
|
| Darren K. Indyke | Defendant |
Sued by Maria Farmer.
|
| Richard D. Kahn | Defendant |
Sued by Maria Farmer.
|
| Naomi Reice Buchwald | United States District Judge |
Issued the order striking the allegation.
|
| Alan Dershowitz | Non-party / Lawyer |
Sought intervention to strike an allegation about himself from the complaint.
|
| Giuffre | Plaintiff (referenced case) |
Mentioned in citation 'Giuffre v. Dershowitz'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Court where the case was filed.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2019-12-23
Court Order filed striking specific allegations from Maria Farmer's complaint.
Southern District of New York
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the court.
|
|
|
Location mentioned in the allegation where Maria Farmer observed guests (presumably Epstein's residence).
|
Relationships (3)
Complaint allegation: 'Maria observed Alan Dershowitz... on a number of occasions'
Plaintiff vs Defendant in Case 1:19-cv-10474
Plaintiff vs Defendant in Case 1:19-cv-10474
Key Quotes (4)
"Among the guests that came to the mansion, Maria observed Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer, on a number of occasions, and observed that he would go upstairs at the same time the young girls were there."Source
012.pdf
Quote #1
"The Court exercises its authority, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(f)(1), to strike sua sponte the aforementioned language."Source
012.pdf
Quote #2
"First, the allegation is neither material nor directly pertinent to any claim or defense in this action."Source
012.pdf
Quote #3
"Moreover, there already exists a forum for exploring the veracity of the allegation. See Giuffre v. Dershowitz"Source
012.pdf
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,169 characters)
Case 1:19-cv-10474-NRB Document 12 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------x
MARIA FARMER,
Plaintiff,
- against -
DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------x
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER
19 Civ. 10474 (NRB)
Non-party Alan Dershowitz ("Dershowitz") seeks permission to
file a motion for limited intervention in order to move to strike
the following allegation from plaintiff's complaint: "Among the
guests that came to the mansion, Maria observed Alan Dershowitz,
a lawyer, on a number of occasions, and observed that he would go
upstairs at the same time the young girls were there." ECF No.
1 ¶ 39. In the alternative, Dershowitz requests that the Court
strike the allegation sua sponte.
Having considered the several letters on this issue, see ECF
Nos. 9-11, the Court exercises its authority, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12 (f) (1) , to strike sua sponte the
aforementioned language. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (f) (1) ("[O]n its
own," a court may "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense
or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter."). The Court briefly addresses its reasons for doing so.
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------x
MARIA FARMER,
Plaintiff,
- against -
DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------x
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER
19 Civ. 10474 (NRB)
Non-party Alan Dershowitz ("Dershowitz") seeks permission to
file a motion for limited intervention in order to move to strike
the following allegation from plaintiff's complaint: "Among the
guests that came to the mansion, Maria observed Alan Dershowitz,
a lawyer, on a number of occasions, and observed that he would go
upstairs at the same time the young girls were there." ECF No.
1 ¶ 39. In the alternative, Dershowitz requests that the Court
strike the allegation sua sponte.
Having considered the several letters on this issue, see ECF
Nos. 9-11, the Court exercises its authority, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12 (f) (1) , to strike sua sponte the
aforementioned language. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (f) (1) ("[O]n its
own," a court may "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense
or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter."). The Court briefly addresses its reasons for doing so.
1
Case 1:19-cv-10474-NRB Document 12 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 2
First, the allegation is neither material nor directly
pertinent to any claim or defense in this action. Nor does Rule
8 require plaintiff to plead credibility or to anticipate a
response to a statute of limitations defense. Moreover, there
already exists a forum for exploring the veracity of the
allegation. See Giuffre v. Dershowitz, No. 19 Civ. 3377 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 16, 2019), ECF No. 1-12.
In light of the foregoing, the Court denies as moot
Dershowitz's request for leave to submit a motion to intervene,
which was requested solely for the purpose of moving to strike the
language at issue.1
SO ORDERED.
DATED: New York, New York
December 23, 2019
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 This ruling is limited to the pleading issue presented, rather than any
potential evidentiary issue.
2
First, the allegation is neither material nor directly
pertinent to any claim or defense in this action. Nor does Rule
8 require plaintiff to plead credibility or to anticipate a
response to a statute of limitations defense. Moreover, there
already exists a forum for exploring the veracity of the
allegation. See Giuffre v. Dershowitz, No. 19 Civ. 3377 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 16, 2019), ECF No. 1-12.
In light of the foregoing, the Court denies as moot
Dershowitz's request for leave to submit a motion to intervene,
which was requested solely for the purpose of moving to strike the
language at issue.1
SO ORDERED.
DATED: New York, New York
December 23, 2019
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 This ruling is limited to the pleading issue presented, rather than any
potential evidentiary issue.
2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document