Extraction Summary

7
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal filing (notice of withdrawal of arguments)
File Size: 119 KB
Summary

Legal filing from June 12, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team withdraws seven specific arguments previously made in a Motion to Dismiss regarding the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, including arguments about the plaintiff's minority status and predicate offenses. The defense states it will now rely solely on arguments regarding count merger and subparagraph D.

People (7)

Name Role Context
Jeffrey Epstein Defendant
Party withdrawing arguments from Motion to Dismiss
Jane Doe No. 101 Plaintiff
Party bringing suit against Epstein
Robert C. Josefsberg Attorney
Counsel for Plaintiff
Katherine W. Ezell Attorney
Counsel for Plaintiff
Jack Alan Goldberger Attorney
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Robert D. Critton, Jr. Attorney
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (Signatory)
Michael J. Pike Attorney
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
United States District Court Southern District of Florida
Court where case is filed
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
Law firm representing the Plaintiff
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
Law firm representing the Defendant
Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman
Law firm representing the Defendant (filing firm)

Timeline (2 events)

2009-05-26
Original date of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (DE 29)
United States District Court Southern District of Florida
2009-06-12
Filing of Defendant's Notice of Withdrawal of Arguments I Through VII
United States District Court Southern District of Florida

Locations (3)

Location Context
Address for Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
Address for Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
Address for Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman

Relationships (3)

Jeffrey Epstein Client-Attorney Robert D. Critton, Jr.
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein signature block
Jeffrey Epstein Client-Attorney Jack Alan Goldberger
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein service list
Jane Doe No. 101 Client-Attorney Robert C. Josefsberg
Counsel for Plaintiff service list

Key Quotes (2)

"Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby withdraws arguments I through VII as set forth in the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss"
Source
053.pdf
Quote #1
"Defendant will rely only on those arguments set forth in subparagraph D, on page 3, and Paragraph VIII (Any Surviving Count Should Be Merged Into A Single Count)"
Source
053.pdf
Quote #2

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,986 characters)

Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80591 – KAM
JANE DOE NO. 101,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWL OF ARGUMENTS I
THROUGH VII OF THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT (DE29)
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby
withdraws arguments I through VII as set forth in the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) [DE 29], dated May 26, 2009. Defendant withdraws
his arguments contained subparagraphs A, B, C and Sections I (The Complaint Must Be
Dismissed Because Plaintiff Is Not A Minor), II (The FAC Must Be Dismissed Because The
Defendant Has Not Been Convicted Of A Predicate Offense), III (Count One Of The FAC Must
Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Please A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)), IV (Count Two
Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. §2423(b)), V (Count
Three Must Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Plead A Violation Of 18 U.S.C. § 2251, VI
(Counts Four and Five Must Be Dismissed Because They Do Not Plead Violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2252(a)(1) Or 2252(a)(1), and VII (Count Six Must Be Dismissed Because 18 U.S.C. §
2252A(g) Was Not Enacted Until 2006).
Defendant will rely only on those arguments set forth in subparagraph D, on page 3, and
Paragraph VIII (Any Surviving Count Should Be Merged Into A Single Count) of the
Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 2 of 2
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint Or, In The Alternative, For A
More Definite Statement [DE 29] dated May 26, 2009.
Counsel for Defendant EPSTEIN
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 June, 2009
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
Katherine W. Ezell, Esq.
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
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
561-659-8300
Fax: 561-835-8691
jagesq@bellsouth.net
Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
Respectfully submitted,
By: ______________________
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
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/515-3148 Fax
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document