UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OrganizationRelationship Network
006.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on July 7, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Epstein's attorneys requested a one-week extension (until July 14, 2009) to respond to a complaint filed by 'Jane Doe No. 8' on May 28, 2009, citing workload from other cases involving Epstein. The motion notes that opposing counsel agreed to this extension.
006-01.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated July 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 8 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted Jeffrey Epstein's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a deadline of July 14, 2009, for the defendant to file a responsive pleading to the complaint.
004.pdf
Legal document filed on June 5, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida court case 'Jane Doe No. 8 v. Jeffrey Epstein'. The document is a Notice of Appearance indicating that attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of the law firm Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP are entering the case to represent the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The service list includes contact information for other attorneys involved, including Jack Alan Goldberger (also for Epstein) and Adam D. Horowitz (for the Plaintiff).
023.pdf
This document is a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice issued by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on May 19, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-CV-80309) in the Southern District of Florida. The order dismisses the case following a stipulation by the parties and notes that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement.
022.pdf
Legal document filed on May 18, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida stipulating the dismissal with prejudice of a civil lawsuit (Case No. 10-CV-80309) brought by Jane Doe No. 103 against Jeffrey Epstein. The document indicates that a settlement was reached between the parties, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
022-01.pdf
This document is a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-CV-80309). Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the case in May 2010 following a stipulation by the parties, noting that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement reached between the plaintiff and Epstein.
019.pdf
A court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309-CIV-MARRA). Judge Kenneth A. Marra orders counsel to confer, file a joint scheduling report, and file a joint discovery report, outlining specific deadlines and procedural rules for the pretrial phase.
018.pdf
This is an Order of Transfer from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida regarding Case No. 10-80309-CIV-ZLOCH (Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffery Epstein). Judge William J. Zloch ordered the case transferred to Judge Kenneth A. Marra on April 23, 2010, citing Internal Operating Procedures. Judge Marra accepted the transfer on April 27, 2010, and the case number was updated to 10-80309-CIV-MARRA.
016.pdf
This document is an agreed motion for an extension of time filed on April 22, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309-WJZ). Plaintiff's counsel, Katherine W. Ezell, requests an extension until May 13, 2010, to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because she is leaving for a vacation in Italy the following day. The motion notes that Epstein's counsel, Robert Critton, agrees to the extension, and the document includes a service list of attorneys involved in this and related cases.
016-01.pdf
This document is a court order (likely a proposed order attached as an exhibit, given the blank signature and 'Document 16-1' header) from the case Jane Doe No. 103 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. It grants the Plaintiff's agreed motion for an extension of time, setting a new deadline of May 13, 2010, to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss Count VI.
015.pdf
This document is a motion filed on April 12, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel in the case 'Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffery Epstein'. The defense seeks to amend their previous Motion to Dismiss to clarify an argument regarding retroactivity, specifically stating that the criminal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)) relied upon by the plaintiff did not exist during the time of the alleged abuse (Jan 2004 - May 2005). The plaintiff's counsel reportedly did not oppose this amendment.
012.pdf
This document is a Motion to Transfer filed on April 1, 2010, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 in the US District Court, Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff seeks to transfer her case against Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Marra's division to consolidate it with other similar pending cases, specifically 'Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein'. The document includes a service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
012-02.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of Florida dated April 1, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309). The order grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer the case to Judge Marra's Division to be consolidated with eleven similar pending actions under the lead case Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 08-80119).
012-01.pdf
This document is an 'Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet' filed on April 1, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach Division) for the case of Jane Doe 103 v. Jeffrey Epstein. It lists eleven related pending cases, all associated with the identifier 'KAM'.
007-01.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffery Epstein (Case No. 10-80309-CIV), entered on March 25, 2010. Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted the Defendant's unopposed motion to exceed the page limitation on his responsive pleading by no more than eight pages.
006.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on March 23, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, requesting an extension of time for Jeffrey Epstein to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 103. Epstein's legal team requests the deadline be moved from March 26 to April 5, 2010, citing workload from 'several other cases' filed in the same court in which Epstein is a defendant. The plaintiff's counsel agreed to this extension.
005.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida dated March 9, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge William J. Zloch grants the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously and orders the permanent sealing of her identity, while directing that the complaint itself be unsealed.
004.pdf
This is a Summons in a Civil Case issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 23, 2010. The case (No. 10-80309) involves plaintiff Jane Doe 103 suing defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The summons directs Epstein to serve an answer to the complaint within 21 days via his counsel, Robert D. Critton, to the plaintiff's attorneys at Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
065.pdf
This document is a Final Order of Dismissal from the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 102 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON). Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the case with prejudice on December 8, 2009, following a stipulation filed by the parties on December 7, 2009. The order notes that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement.
064.pdf
A Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on December 7, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-CV-80656). Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 102 and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein agreed to dismiss the action following a settlement, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms. The document is signed by Robert Critton (representing Epstein) and Katherine W. Ezell (representing Jane Doe No. 102).
062.pdf
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.
062-01.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants the defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time, setting a deadline of December 15, 2009, for Epstein to file a responsive pleading to the complaint.
059.pdf
This document is a motion filed on November 20, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, requesting permission for Jeffrey Epstein to attend mediation in the case involving Carolyn Andriano (C.M.A.). The motion notes that a previous no-contact order exists regarding Andriano, but her counsel has no objection to Epstein attending the deposition, mediation, or trial. The document includes a service list detailing the attorneys involved in this and related cases, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
059-01.pdf
This is an Agreed Order from the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated November 20, 2009. The order grants Jeffrey Epstein permission to attend the deposition, mediation, and trial involving Plaintiff Carolyn Andriano (referred to as CMA in the related case title), explicitly stating that a previous 'no contact order' does not preclude his attendance at these legal proceedings.
056.pdf
This document is an 'Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time' filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein on November 16, 2009. The motion requests an extension until November 27, 2009, for Epstein to respond to the complaint, citing that the parties are working together and are 'close to a resolution' of the case. The document includes a certificate of service listing the attorneys involved for both the plaintiff (Podhurst Orseck, P.A.) and the defendant (Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. and Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity