Bruce E. Reinhart
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
SARAH KELLEN
|
Client |
16
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
SARAH KELLEN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
4
|
4 | |
|
person
SARAH KELLEN
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
SARAH
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-06-11 | N/A | Certificate of Service mailed to opposing counsel. | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
058.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on behalf of an unnamed Intervener opposing Jeffrey Epstein's motion to stay the release of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The filing argues that the NPA is a public record that was never properly sealed and that Epstein failed to demonstrate the necessary 'irreparable harm' or 'likelihood of success' required to grant a stay. The document was filed in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court of Palm Beach County in July 2009.
042.pdf
This document is a 'Motion to Intervene' filed on June 15, 2009, in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, in the criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 2008CF009381AXX). An unnamed (redacted) applicant, represented by Spencer T. Kuvin, seeks to intervene to join the Palm Beach Post in arguing for access to the sealed Federal non-prosecution agreement. The applicant argues they have a pending civil complaint against Epstein with similar allegations and require the sealed document for discovery and impeachment purposes.
016-02.pdf
This document is a Motion for No-Contact Order filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida on May 22, 2009. The plaintiffs argue that despite a state plea agreement prohibiting contact, Epstein's counsel refused to confirm he would not contact federal victims. The filing includes exhibits of correspondence between attorneys and a transcript of the 2008 plea conference where Judge Pucillo explicitly defined 'indirect contact' to include Facebook and MySpace.
014-02.pdf
This document contains notices for the videotaped deposition of Jean Luc Bruhel (spelled Bruhnel in one instance), scheduled for November 3, 2009, at Esquire Court Reporters in West Palm Beach, Florida. The deposition is relevant to two civil cases pending in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court of Palm Beach County: B.B. v. Jeffrey Epstein and L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein. The document lists numerous attorneys involved in the litigation, including Spencer Kuvin, Bradley Edwards, Jack Goldberger, and Bruce Reinhart.
080.pdf
This document is a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on June 30, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen in the Southern District of Florida. The parties agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled, with each party bearing their own legal costs. The document notes that a settlement was reached, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
050.pdf
This document is a Notice of Compliance filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team (Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman) on July 28, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It addresses a court order regarding the preservation of evidence and a protective order, noting that while the parties agreed on many sections, they could not finalize a joint order, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order separately. The document lists numerous related civil cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and provides a comprehensive service list of attorneys involved in the various Epstein-related litigations at that time, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
048.pdf
This is a legal reply filed by Sarah Kellen's attorney in July 2009, requesting the court set aside a default judgment in the case brought by Jane Doe II. The document argues that service of process in New York was legally deficient because the 'nail and mail' method was used without proper due diligence (attempts were made when Kellen was known to be out of town) and that the default was entered prematurely before the response deadline. Kellen also asserts a meritorious defense, stating she did not conspire with Jeffrey Epstein to commit sexual battery and was unaware of what occurred privately between Epstein and the Plaintiff.
042.pdf
This document is a Motion to Set Aside Order of Default filed by attorney Bruce E. Reinhart on behalf of defendant Sarah Kellen in the case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Sarah Kellen. Kellen argues that the default judgment entered on June 17, 2009, is invalid because the plaintiff failed to properly serve the summons under New York law (specifically regarding timing of filing the affidavit of service) and because the time for a responsive pleading had not yet expired when the default was entered.
032.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on June 4, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs are requesting a court order prohibiting Jeffrey Epstein and his agents from contacting them directly or indirectly, citing his status as a convicted sex offender and their fear of intimidation. The document also includes a service list detailing the legal representation for various parties, including Bruce E. Reinhart representing co-defendant Sarah Kellen.
027.pdf
This document is a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal submitted on May 29, 2009, by attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs request permission to file their response to Epstein's Motion to Stay under seal, or alternatively, request the court to unseal the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) so they can adequately respond. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing attorneys representing Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and various other Jane Doe plaintiffs.
025.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on May 29, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida, arguing for the right to proceed anonymously in their lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs contend that Epstein aims to reveal their identities to harass and intimidate them, and they cite various legal precedents and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to support their request for privacy due to the sexual nature of the crimes committed against them as minors. The document also includes a service list detailing the attorneys representing various parties in related cases against Epstein.
024.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on September 18, 2008, by Plaintiff Jane Doe in the Southern District of Florida (Case 08-80804) against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to Epstein's Motion to Dismiss until 15 days after the court rules on a pending motion to remand the case to state court due to alleged lack of federal jurisdiction. The document lists legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
021.pdf
This document is an 'Opposition to Remand Motion' filed by defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen in September 2008 in the Southern District of Florida. The defendants argue that the case should remain in federal court because the plaintiff fraudulently joined co-defendant Haley Robson (a Florida resident) solely to destroy diversity jurisdiction. The filing contends that the plaintiff has no valid cause of action against Robson for civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), or civil RICO under Florida law, arguing that Robson's alleged actions do not meet the legal standards for these torts.
019.pdf
Defendant Jeffrey Epstein moves to dismiss Counts I (sexual assault), II (civil conspiracy), and IV (civil RICO) of Jane Doe's amended complaint. The motion argues that the sexual assault claim improperly relies on a criminal statute with no private right of action, the conspiracy claim lacks an actionable underlying tort, and the RICO claim fails to allege a direct injury resulting from a predicate act. The document outlines relevant Florida case law and statutes to support the dismissal of these claims.
017.pdf
This document is a Motion to File Under Seal submitted by defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen on July 25, 2008, in the case of Jane Doe v. Epstein et al. The defendants request to seal their 'motion for stay' to protect a confidential agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The document includes certificates of compliance and service, noting that the plaintiff opposes the motion, and lists the legal counsel representing all parties involved.
016-01.pdf
This document contains a Proposed Order and an Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen (Case No. 08-80804). Filed on August 13, 2008, the motion requests an extension to file a Civil RICO Case Statement until after the court rules on an upcoming motion to remand the case back to state court. The plaintiff argues the case was improperly removed to federal court and lacks federal jurisdiction. The document includes a service list identifying legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
014.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on August 22, 2008, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. Epstein's lawyers state they have no opposition to the plaintiff's Motion to Preserve Evidence (DE 12). However, they dispute the plaintiff's certification of compliance, arguing that plaintiff's counsel filed the motion prematurely without properly conferring with the defense or waiting for a return call regarding Epstein's position.
012.pdf
This document is a motion filed on August 21, 2008, by Plaintiff Jane Doe in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. The plaintiff requests the court to preserve evidence seized by the Palm Beach Police Department from Epstein's home, citing concerns that Epstein (who had recently pleaded guilty and was in jail) was attempting to retrieve the evidence through State Court and might destroy it. The document includes a service list identifying legal counsel for all parties, including Bruce E. Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
008.pdf
This document is a motion filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on August 8, 2008, requesting an extension to file a response to the complaint in the case of Jane Doe #1. Epstein's lawyers argue that the deadline should be aligned with parallel cases (Jane Doe Nos. 2-5) to September 4, 2008, to promote judicial economy. The document notes that co-defendants Haley Robson and Sarah Kellen had not yet been served at the time of filing.
008-01.pdf
A court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe #1 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants the Defendant's Motion to Align Response Date. Copies were furnished to several attorneys including Bruce Reinhart and Jack Goldberger.
003.pdf
This document is a Motion for Enlargement of Time filed on July 25, 2008, in the Southern District of Florida civil case Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Defendants Epstein and Sarah Kellen request an extension to answer the complaint until 10 days after a decision is made on their contemporaneous motion to stay the case, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3509 regarding civil stays during parallel criminal proceedings involving child victims. The document includes a service list detailing legal representation for all parties, including Bruce Reinhart as counsel for Sarah Kellen.
002.pdf
Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen filed a request for oral argument on July 25, 2008, in the Southern District of Florida regarding a motion to stay civil proceedings pending the resolution of a criminal action. The document lists legal representation for all parties, including Jane Doe (Plaintiff) and Haley Robson (Co-Defendant). Attorneys Michael R. Tein and Guy A. Lewis are the primary signatories for Epstein.
020.pdf
This document is an agreed motion filed on May 13, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff requests a one-week extension to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because the parties are in the process of resolving the matter via settlement, which would render the motion moot. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, Co-Defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
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.
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.
Service of Intervener's Response
Service of the response via U.S. Mail.
Motion to Set Aside Order of Default
Argument that service was improper and default judgment was premature.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity