Robert D. Critton, Jr.
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
33
Very Strong
|
29 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jay P. Lefkowitz
|
Co counsel |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Counsel for epstein |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
JACK A. GOLDBERGER
|
Correspondent cc |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Counsel for |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-06-29 | N/A | Signing of Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
| 2010-06-28 | N/A | Electronic filing of legal document in Doe v. Epstein case. | Florida Southern District C... | View |
| 2010-06-16 | N/A | Notice of Appearance filed by defense counsel | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2010-06-16 | N/A | Notice of Appearance filed | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2010-04-12 | N/A | Date of signature/service of the document. | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
| 2009-11-20 | N/A | Filing of Defendant Epstein's Motion to Attend Mediation | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-11-16 | N/A | Filing of Reply to Response regarding preservation of evidence | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-11-16 | N/A | Filing of Reply to RRA's Response | US District Court, Southern... | View |
| 2009-09-17 | N/A | Affidavit of Robert D. Critton, Jr. entered on FLSD Docket for the case 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2009-09-17 | N/A | Deposition scheduled but canceled due to an incident involving Jeffrey Epstein and the plaintiff. | Florida Science Foundation ... | View |
| 2009-08-20 | N/A | Filing of Defendant Epstein's Reply to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law. | US District Court Southern ... | View |
| 2009-07-28 | N/A | Filing of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Notice of Compliance with Court Order (DE #192) | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-07-28 | N/A | Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed a Notice of Compliance regarding the Court's Order DE #192. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-06-12 | N/A | Filing of Defendant's Notice of Withdrawal of Arguments I Through VII | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-06-05 | N/A | Filing of Notice of Appearance by Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP for Jeffrey Epstein | US District Court, Southern... | View |
| 2009-06-04 | N/A | Filing of Motion for Limited Appearance | U.S. District Court, Southe... | View |
| 2009-05-21 | N/A | Motion for Limited Appearance filed for Michael D. Shumsky | US District Court Southern ... | View |
| 2009-05-21 | N/A | Deadline set by Podhurst Orseck for confirmation that preservation steps have been taken. | N/A | View |
| 2009-05-21 | N/A | Filing of Motion for Limited Appearance for Jay P. Lefkowitz | US District Court, Southern... | View |
| 2009-05-18 | N/A | Filing of Defendant Epstein's Unopposed Motion to Exceed Page Limitation | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2009-05-13 | N/A | Start of state court trial (Cardiopulmonary & Primary Care Assoc. v. Lewis). | State Court (Florida) | View |
| 2009-05-11 | N/A | Notice of Appearance filed by attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike on behalf of J... | US District Court Southern ... | View |
| 2009-05-01 | N/A | Motion for Extension filed. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2008-02-05 | N/A | Filing of Motion for Protective Order | Palm Beach Gardens, FL | View |
031.pdf
This document is a Reply by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein to Plaintiff Jane Doe II's opposition to his motion to dismiss a civil suit (Case 09-CIV-80469). Epstein's defense argues that a concurrent state action requires dismissal of the federal case, that the 2006 amendment to 18 U.S.C. §2255 ('Masha's Law') cannot be applied retroactively to conduct from 2003-2005 to increase damages, and that the Plaintiff misrepresents the terms of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement with the US Attorney's Office. The document details specific dates in 2003 and 2004 where the Plaintiff alleges she received payments for acts of prostitution.
015-01.pdf
This document is a Motion to Stay proceedings filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in a civil case brought by a plaintiff identified as C.M.A. Epstein argues that the civil case should be paused until late 2010, when his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with federal prosecutors expires, to avoid forcing him to waive his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination while facing potential ongoing criminal liability. The filing includes an affidavit from his criminal defense attorney, Jack Goldberger, and an Indictment from 2006 for Felony Solicitation of Prostitution.
013.pdf
This document is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeffrey Epstein's defense team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 6, 2009, against Plaintiff Jane Doe II. The defense argues that the federal case should be dismissed because a nearly identical state case was filed 10 months prior, and because the plaintiff is improperly applying a 2006 amendment to 18 U.S.C. §2255 retroactively to conduct alleged to have occurred between 2003 and 2005, thereby violating the Ex Post Facto clause. Additionally, the motion argues that the statute does not allow for multiplying damages per incident and that the plaintiff failed to allege the necessary interstate commerce elements required for federal jurisdiction.
009.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys on May 4, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein opposes the court's potential order to consolidate multiple civil lawsuits (filed by various 'Jane Doe' plaintiffs) for all discovery purposes, arguing that while consolidating depositions is acceptable, full consolidation would confuse distinct facts and defenses unique to each case. The filing lists numerous related case numbers and requests clarification on how consolidation would operate regarding motion practice.
007.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on May 1, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida (Case 09-CIV-80469) by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting a five-day extension to file a response to Jane Doe II's complaint. The extension (until May 6, 2009) was requested because Epstein's counsel, Robert D. Critton, Jr., was preparing for an unrelated state court trial. The document confirms that Plaintiff's counsel, Isidro M. Garcia, agreed to this extension.
030.pdf
This document is a Notice of Withdrawing Subpoena filed on June 14, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff C.L., represented by attorney Spencer T. Kuvin, withdrew a subpoena and cancelled the deposition of Maritza Milagros Vasquez, which had been scheduled for June 15, 2010. The document includes a certificate of service listing legal counsel for various parties involved in the primary case (Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein) and related cases.
017.pdf
Legal filing from November 2009 in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein's attorneys reply to a response regarding the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA), which was undergoing restructuring. The document notes that the Department of Justice had seized approximately 40 boxes of documents from RRA, including 13 boxes related to the Epstein case, and alludes to serious ethical and criminal issues involving the RRA firm that could impact the validity of the cases against Epstein.
015.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on August 20, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 8 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues that the plaintiff's claims of 'Sexual Assault and Battery' (Count I) and 'Coercion and Enticement' (Count III) should be dismissed because they are barred by the statute of limitations. Epstein's lawyers contend that because the plaintiff was aware of the injury at the time of the alleged incident in 2001 (when she was 16) and turned 18 in 2003, the time limits for filing suit (4 years and 6 years respectively) had expired by the time the complaint was filed in 2009.
008.pdf
This document is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeffrey Epstein's defense team on July 14, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 8 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues that the plaintiff's claims of Sexual Assault and Battery (Count I) and Coercion (Count III) are barred by the applicable 4-year (state) and 6-year (federal) statutes of limitations, as the alleged incident occurred in 2001 when the plaintiff was 16. Footnotes in the document provide graphic details of the allegations, describing how Jane Doe was recruited by another girl, brought to Epstein's Palm Beach mansion, and sexually assaulted during a massage.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
057.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on November 16, 2009, regarding the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA). The filing notes that the Department of Justice seized approximately 40 boxes of documents from RRA, including 13 boxes specifically related to Epstein cases. The document highlights scheduling conflicts involving the deposition of Herbert Stettin (RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer) and alludes to potential ethical or criminal issues within RRA that could impact the validity of the cases against Epstein.
034.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on June 18, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-80656) by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Epstein requests an extension until July 5, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102, citing the workload from multiple concurrent cases where he is a defendant. The document confirms that Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this extension and lists the legal representatives for both parties.
006.pdf
Legal document filed on May 11, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 09-80656). Attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of the firm Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman formally entered their appearance as counsel for the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in a civil suit brought by Jane Doe No. 102. The document includes a certificate of service listing other counsel involved, including Jack Alan Goldberger for the defense and attorneys from Podhurst Orseck, P.A. for the plaintiff.
002.pdf
A summons issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 1, 2009, for Case Number 09-80656. The summons is directed to Jeffrey Epstein, located at the Palm Beach County Stockade, notifying him of a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe 102. It lists his defense counsel as Jack A. Goldberger and Robert D. Critton, Jr., and requires a response to the plaintiff's attorneys, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., within 20 days.
082.pdf
This document is a Reply filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in November 2009 requesting a permanent order for the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA), which was undergoing restructuring. The filing highlights that the Department of Justice had seized approximately 40 boxes of documents from RRA, including about 13 boxes related to Epstein cases, amidst concerns of 'serious ethical and potentially criminal issues' at the firm. The document also argues against delaying the deposition of RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer, Herbert Stettin, citing upcoming trial deadlines.
078.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on October 29, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting an extension of time until November 16, 2009, to file a reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to the motion to dismiss. The document indicates that the parties are working together to find a resolution to the case. The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
070.pdf
This document is an 'Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time' filed on August 7, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team requests an extension until October 15, 2009, to reply to the Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss, citing that the parties are working together to find a resolution. The motion lists legal counsel for both sides, including attorneys from Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, and Podhurst Orseck.
064.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Compliance' filed on July 28, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It pertains to multiple civil cases filed by 'Jane Doe' plaintiffs against Epstein. The filing states that while the court ordered the parties to agree on a preservation of evidence order, they were unable to reach a full agreement, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the attorneys representing the various plaintiffs and defendants, including Sarah Kellen.
057.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on July 2, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-80591). Epstein's attorneys request an extension until August 21, 2009, to reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to a motion to dismiss, citing workload from other cases involving Epstein. The document confirms that Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this extension via telephone and correspondence.
053.pdf
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.
041.pdf
This document is a Motion for Limited Appearance filed on June 4, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Attorney Robert D. Critton, Jr. moves for the admission of Jay P. Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis LLP to appear as co-counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes certificates of service to opposing counsel and a certificate of good standing for Lefkowitz from the District of Columbia court.
Service of Motion for Protective Order
Certificate of Service indicating the document was filed via CM/ECF.
Certificate of Service
Certification that a document was electronically filed and served via CM/ECF.
Epstein's Motion for Protective Order
Electronic filing and service of the motion for protective order.
Service of Stipulation of Dismissal
Electronic filing and service of the stipulation document via CM/ECF
Notice of Appearance
Filing of appearance as counsel for Defendant and certificate of service
Rule 7.1 Certification
Good faith effort to resolve issues; Plaintiff's counsel stated parties already complied with requirements.
Defendant Epstein's Motion to Attend Mediation
Service of motion requesting permission for Epstein to attend mediation regarding Carolyn Andriano.
Reply to RRA's Response to Motion for Preservation of Evi...
Filing of the reply and certification of service via CM/ECF.
Reply to Response to Motion
Filing of Reply to RRA's Response regarding preservation of evidence
Jane Doe No. 4 v. Epstein
Informing that Epstein plans to attend the deposition but will not engage in conversation.
Service of Reply Memorandum
Electronic service of the reply document via CM/ECF system.
Notice of Withdrawal of Arguments
Service of legal document via CM/ECF
Motion for Limited Appearance
Service of Motion for Limited Appearance via CM/ECF
Service of Motion
Service of Motion for Limited Appearance via CM/ECF
Response to request
Stating the request is unnecessary as Epstein has not contacted clients, except for one instance where a client contacted Goldberger's office.
Service of Motion for Limited Appearance
Service of motion via CM/ECF system
Re: [Redacted]
Response to April 17 letter, refusing to concede that the Non-Prosecution Agreement prevents all contact. Heavily redacted.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity