| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-01 | Legal filing | Filing of a Notice of Motion to Withdraw by Christian R. Everdell, Mark S. Cohen, and Cohen & Gre... | New York, New York | View |
| 2021-09-03 | Court order | The court issued an order with which the prosecution allegedly failed to comply, leading to the c... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Legal ruling | The Court’s Opinion and Order (the “April Opinion” or “Apr. Op.”) was dated. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2020-09-02 | Legal ruling | The district court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to mo... | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | View |
| 2020-07-08 | Legal filing | The court filed an order granting Jeffrey S. Pagliuca's motion for admission pro hac vice. | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | View |
This document is a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal filed on December 8, 2020, in the U.S. District Court (SDNY). The plaintiff 'VE' and the defendants (Epstein's estate executors Indyke and Kahn, along with associated entities) agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice because the plaintiff resolved her claims through the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program. The order was signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan.
This is a Notice of Change of Address filed on July 8, 2020, in the Southern District of New York for case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN (VE v. Indyke et al.). Attorney Bennet J. Moskowitz notifies the court that his firm, Troutman Sanders LLP, has changed its name to Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP. The physical address and contact numbers remain unchanged.
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated June 19, 2020, in the case of VE v. Nine East 71st Street, Corporation, et al. Judge Alison J. Nathan administratively denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint without prejudice, citing a stay entered by Judge Freeman in a related matter.
This document is a Joint Stipulation and Order Staying Action from June 2020 in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff 'VE' and the defendants (Epstein's estate executors Indyke and Kahn, and associated entities) agreed to pause the litigation to allow the plaintiff to participate in the 'Epstein Victims' Compensation Program,' a non-adversarial alternative. Judge Debra Freeman signed the order, staying the case and requiring a status report by August 14, 2020.
This document is a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order filed on June 12, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-07625). The plaintiff, identified as 'VE', and the defendants (Executors of the Epstein Estate and associated entities) agreed to stay the lawsuit to allow the plaintiff to participate in the 'Epstein Victims' Compensation Program', a non-adversarial alternative for resolving sexual abuse claims. The document is signed by attorneys Brad Edwards (for the plaintiff) and Bennet J. Moskowitz (for the defendants).
A Notice of Appearance filed on May 12, 2020, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Attorney Charles L. Glover of Troutman Sanders LLP formally enters his appearance as counsel for the defendants, including the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein's executors (Indyke and Kahn) and associated corporate entities, in a case brought by plaintiff 'VE'.
This document is a Joint Proposed Discovery Schedule filed on February 6, 2020, in the case of VE v. Indyke et al. It outlines the agreed-upon timeline for the exchange of evidence, including initial disclosures, medical records, and expert reports. The filing identifies the key subjects of discovery as Epstein's alleged torts against the plaintiff, the liability of the corporate defendants, and the plaintiff's damages.
Court order from the Southern District of New York dated January 14, 2020, coordinating pretrial supervision for multiple civil lawsuits filed by women alleging sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Debra Freeman orders the parties to submit a discovery schedule by February 6, 2020, and schedules a joint pretrial conference for February 11, 2020. The document lists thirteen specific cases involving plaintiffs such as Katlyn Doe, Priscilla Doe, and others against Indyke and other Epstein-related entities.
This document is a Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law opposing a Motion to Dismiss in the case of VE v. Indyke et al. The plaintiff, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse beginning in 2001 at age 16, argues that the corporate defendants (Nine East 71st Street Corp, Financial Trust Company, and NES LLC) are liable for negligence, negligent security, and negligent supervision. The memorandum asserts these entities were integral to Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise, with employees facilitating the recruitment and scheduling of victims, and argues that claims are valid under the New York Child Victims Act.
A court order from the Southern District of New York in the case of VE v. Nine East 71st Street Corporation (an Epstein-affiliated entity). Judge Alison J. Nathan directs the court clerk to clear specific docket numbers (4 and 24) which were resolved by a previous docket entry.
This document is a blank Non-Disclosure Agreement form filed on December 4, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding Case No. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN (VE v. Indyke et al.). The agreement requires signatories to maintain the confidentiality of the Plaintiff's identity ('VE') in connection with the litigation against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and associated entities. It stipulates that willful violation of the agreement may result in punishment for contempt of court.
This document is a Memorandum of Law filed on November 29, 2019, by the defendants (Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and associated corporate entities) in the case VE v. Indyke et al. The defendants move to dismiss several counts of the plaintiff's complaint, arguing that the battery claim is time-barred and not revived by the Child Victims Act because it is distinct from claims under NY Penal Law § 130. Furthermore, they argue that negligence claims against the corporate defendants (Nine East, FTC, and NES) are based on vague, conclusory allegations that fail to establish a duty of care, breach, or proximate cause, and that punitive damages are legally barred against an estate.
This document is a legal declaration filed on November 29, 2019, by Bennet J. Moskowitz, an attorney for the defendants in the case of VE v. Darren K. Indyke, et al. Moskowitz declares his representation of the Co-Executors of the Jeffrey Epstein Estate and associated corporate entities. The declaration serves to submit a copy of the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint as an exhibit to support the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated November 27, 2019, in the case of VE v. Nine East 71st Street, Corporation (an entity associated with Jeffrey Epstein). District Judge Alison J. Nathan adjourns the initial pre-trial conference scheduled for December 6, 2019, indefinitely (sine die) due to a general pre-trial referral to Judge Freeman.
This document is an Order of Reference from the U.S. District Court (SDNY) filed on November 18, 2019. Judge Alison J. Nathan refers the civil case (1:19-cv-07625) between plaintiff 'VE' and defendant 'Nine East 71st Street, Corporation' (Epstein's property entity) to a Magistrate Judge for general pretrial proceedings, including scheduling, discovery, and settlement.
This document is a Memorandum of Law filed on November 15, 2019, in the US District Court (SDNY) by the Co-Executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate (Indyke and Kahn) and associated entities. The defendants state they do not object to the Plaintiff 'VE' proceeding anonymously but request the court enter a specific 'Proposed Order' to ensure they can adequately defend themselves and conduct discovery while maintaining her confidentiality from the general public. The filing argues that while anonymity is acceptable, it must not prejudice the defense's ability to investigate the allegations.
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of New York filed on November 15, 2019, in the case of VE v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn (Epstein Estate representatives). Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered strict protocols to protect the anonymity of the plaintiff 'VE,' requiring filings identifying the plaintiff to be sealed and limiting disclosure of their identity strictly to the defense team for legal necessity.
This document is a legal letter filed on October 16, 2019, by attorney Bradley J. Edwards to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It concerns the case 'VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al.' and serves to alert the court to a recent decision in a related Epstein case (Katlyn Doe v. Indyke) where Judge Castel allowed a plaintiff to proceed anonymously, supporting Edwards' client's similar motion.
This document is a Court Order from the SDNY dated September 11, 2019, in the case of Katlyn Doe v. Darren K. Indyke, et al. Judge P. Kevin Castel grants the plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously using the pseudonym 'Katlyn Doe.' The court determines that the highly sensitive nature of the allegations—involving sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein beginning when the plaintiff was a minor—and the risk of further psychological harm outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
This document is a civil summons filed on September 26, 2019, in the Southern District of New York for Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN. The plaintiff, identified as 'VE', is suing several entities including Nine East 71st Street Corporation and Financial Trust Company, Inc., as well as Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. The document requires the defendants to serve an answer to the complaint within 21 days to the plaintiff's attorney, J. Stanley Pottinger.
This document is a Summons in a Civil Action issued on September 10, 2019, by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff, identified as 'VE', is suing several entities and individuals associated with the Epstein estate, including Nine East 71st Street Corp, Financial Trust Company Inc., NES LLC, Darren K. Indyke, and Richard D. Kahn. This specific summons is addressed to Financial Trust Company, Inc. in the US Virgin Islands.
This document is a Summons in a Civil Action (Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN) filed on September 9, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff 'VE' is suing multiple defendants including Nine East 71st Street Corporation, Financial Trust Company, Inc., NES, LLC, Darren K. Indyke, and Richard D. Kahn. The summons is specifically directed to Nine East 71st Street Corporation, care of Darren K. Indyke.
This document is a Summons in a Civil Action filed on September 6, 2019, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN). The plaintiff, identified as 'VE', is suing Nine East 71st Street Corporation, Financial Trust Company, Inc., and NES, LLC. The summons is specifically addressed to Financial Trust Company, Inc. in St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands, instructing them to respond to the complaint represented by attorney J. Stanley Pottinger.
This document is a 'Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference' issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on August 28, 2019, in the civil case of VE v. Nine East 71st Street Corporation, Financial Trust Company, Inc., and NES, LLC. The order schedules a mandatory pretrial conference for December 6, 2019, at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York. It instructs counsel to confer regarding settlement and discovery, and to submit a joint letter and Proposed Civil Case Management Plan seven days prior to the conference.
This document is a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on August 27, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. Attorney Brittany N. Henderson of Edwards Pottinger, LLC requests permission to represent Plaintiff 'VE' in a civil case against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein and associated entities (Nine East 71st Street Corp, Financial Trust Company, NES LLC). Henderson certifies her good standing with the Florida bar.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity