EFTA00788364.pdf

W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 1400 250 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE SOUTH WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401.5056 TELEPHONE (561)655-4777 PAX (561)2354691 October 19, 2017 Via eCourtesy The Honorable Rodney Smith Dade County Courthouse 73 West Flagler Street Courtroom DCC1401 Miami, FL 33130 RE: Jean-Luc Brunel, individually and MCI Model & Talent Miami, LLC vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Tyler McDonald, Tyler McDonald D/B/A/ YLORG Case No.: 14-21348 CA 01 Dear Judge Smith: Please find enclosed a courtesy copy of Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's, Response to Motion for Ruling on Service of Process on Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein without a Hearing. Because the Plaintiffs attorney, Mr. Titone, is asking by way of his motion that you rule on his motion without a hearing, we are concerned that Mr. Titone may provide his motion to you directly. We are very much opposed to Mr. Titone's motion and therefore we have filed with the Clerk the attached response. Thank you very much for your consideration of this situation. Very truly yours, W. CIS BRE JR., ESQUIRE WCB/msk Enclosure cc: Mr. Joseph Titone, Esq. EFTA00788364 • Filing # 62990957 E-Filed 10/18/2017 12:26:18 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-21348-CA-01 JEAN-LUC BRUNEL, individually, and MC2 MODEL & TALENT MIAMI, LLC. Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, TYLER MCDONALD, TYLER MCDONALD D/B/A/ YLORO Defendants. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JEFFREY MOTION FOR RULING ON SERVICE OF PROCESS ON EPSTEIN WITH ATTACHED ORDER h his undersigned COMES NOW, the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and throug Service of Process on counsel, and files his response to Plaintiffs Motion for Ruling on s: Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, Without a Hearing, and states as follow After almost 1. The Amended Complaint in this mutter was filed January 2015. y Epstein. three (3) years, the Plaintiff has never properly served Defendant, Jeffre gh counsel, filed his 2. On October 16, 2017, Plaintiff; Jean-Luc Brunel, throu motion is essentially a re-file of Plaintiffs second Motion for Ruling on Service of Process. This Motion for Ruling on Service of Process filed March 16, 2017. March 6, 2017, 3. The single major difference between the October 16, 2017 and his motion without a hearing. filings is that Jean-Luc Brunel is now asking that the court grant Ruling on Service of 4. Fully aware that Jeffiey Epstein opposes both motions for of any opposition, thus implying by Process, counsel for Plaintiff has failed to inform the court be further from the truth. omission that the motions are agreed upon. Nothing could EFTA00788365  al. Jean-Luc Brunel, et al. vs. Jeffrey Epstein, et Case No.: 14-21348-CA-01 Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Ruling on Service of Process on Jeffrey Epstein Ruling on Service of Process 5. In response to Plaintiffs prior Motion for orandum in Opposition to Motion for Ruling on Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, filed his Mem to prior positions with regard to Plaintiffs failure Service of Process. Mr. Epstein maintains his 10 months after the filing of Plaintiffs amended properly serve him in what is now 2 years and ched as Exhibit A. In the seven months that have complaint. A copy of this Memorandum is atta dum in Opposition, Plaintiff has never even passed since Mr. Epstein filed his Memoran attempted to set his motion for hearing. Ruling on Service of Process and 6. Also in response to Plaintiffs prior Motion for rt's order of October 5, 2016, Defendant, browse the Plaintiff had failed to comply with this cou tein As grounds for the Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Eps Jeffrey Epstein, filed a Motion to Dismiss. the October 5 Order that if service were not effected by relied on the express terms of this Court's case was to be automatically dismissed and "no deadline specifically provided in the Order, the tein's ry." Copies of this court's Order and Eps further order of this Court shall be necessa ths that ibits B & C respectively. In the seven mon Motion to Dismiss are attached hereto as Exh Motion to Dism iss, Plaintiff never once opposed the have passed since Mr. Epstein filed his automatic dismissal of this case. informed on December 7, 2016, that the 7. Incredibly, although Plaintiff was clearly er 17, 2016, was ineffective, Plaintiff has not made a Plaintiffs last attempted service on Novemb mpt tein since that failed November 17th atte single attempt to properly serve Mr. Bps which was so graciously granted by 8. The additional time to obtain proper service ntiff has filed attempt to obtain proper service, the Plai this court has long since run. Rather than ice was to mislead this court by claiming that proper serv two badly flawed motions in an attempt these so far as to try to trick the court into ruling on obtained. The Plaintiff has even gone ions. g the court that there is opposition to the mot motions without hearing while not informin EFTA00788366 Jean-Luc Brunel, et al. vs. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Case No.: 14-21348-CA-01 Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Ruling on Service of Process on Jeffrey Epstein e of Process, 9. Given the flagrant violations of Florida Statutes dealing with Servic October 5, 2016, and Plaintiffs the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court's Order of opposition to his motions attempt to mislead the court by not informing the court that there was ssed with prejudice. NOTE: and an outstanding Motion to Dismiss; this matter should be dismi of October 5, 2016. This claim has already been dismissed by operation of this Court's Order dismi ss, with prejudice, WHEREFORE, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, moves that the court MODEL & TALENT MIAMI, the claims of JEAN-LUC BRUNEL, individually, and MC2 LLC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of the foregoing has been IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a true and correct copy October, 2017 to Joe Tyrone, electronically furnished via email and/or E-ftle on the Viday of joctitone708@comcastmet. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR,Ill. Counsel for Epstein 250 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 (561) (561) E-Mail: By: /s/ W. Chester Brewer. Jr. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 261858 EFTA00788367  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND POR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA r CASE NO. 14-21348-CA-01 JEAN-LUC BRUNEL, individually, and MC2 MODEL & TALENT MIAMI, LLC. Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, TYLER MCDONALD, TYLER MCDONALD D/B/A/ YLORO Defendants. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RULING ON SERVICE OF PROCESS Having already once received this Court's indulgence for Plaintiffs' total disregard of Florida's procedural rules governing proper service of process and a 120-day extension of the time within which to effect service (effectively providing Plaintiffs with a 2-year service window), Plaintiffs again ignore Florida's jurisdictional prerequisites with their improper service attempt. They have disregarded this Court's new service deadline even after receiving prompt and repeated notice from the undersigned counsel of their improper and ineffective service attempt, and, now that the deadline has long passed, ask this Court to bless their misconduct for a second time. Service of process in this case is governed by Florida law. Florida Statutes Section 48.031 (I)(a) requires that service of original process be made by personally delivering a copy of the complaint, petition or other initial pleading or paper to the person to be served, or by leaving the copies at his or her usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents. Plaintiffs have not met a single one of these requirements in this case. When Plaintiffs first filed their complaint in August 2014, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein was not even a party. Plaintiffs amended their complaint in January 2015 to assert two non-business counts against Mr. Epstein personally and caused a summons to be issued on February 9, 2015. In more than two years since Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include Mr. Epstein as a party, they have not made a single attempt to serve Mr. Epstein at his residence and usual place of abode in the United States Virgin Islands. Plaintiffs made a first half-hearted attempt on March 10, 2015 to serve Mr. Epstein in New York by leaving process with a woman at a location that was not Mr. Epstein's usual place of abode. The woman with whom the process was left was not a resident of New York, much less the location where service was attempted. Plaintiffs never even filed a Notice of Service of EFTA00788368  tly filed a motion Process in connection with that failed attempt. The undersigned counsel promp respond to that year to to quash on behalf of Mr. Epstein in April 2015. Plaintiffs waited a full ps conce ding that the attem pted service was motion to quash and in their response, perha iffs be permitted order that Plaint improper, asked this Court to disregard the procedural rules and of record in this case. to serve Mr. Epstein through legal counsel (not the undersigned) not even elves scheduled on Mr. After Plaintiffs failed to appear at the hearing that Plaintiffs thems Epste in's motion to quash. Epstein's motion to quash, on July 28, 2016, this Court granted Mr. not realize that the Thereafter, Plaintiffs sought a rehearing, claiming that they did er 5, 2015, this court kindly hearing they themselves scheduled was proceeding, and on Octob rly servo Mr. Epstein or the granted Plaintiffs a full 120 additional days within which to prope matter would be dismissed without further order of this Court. residence in the U.S. Although Mr. Epstein's affidavit confirming the location of his n to quash , Plaintiffs ignored it. Virgin Islands was filed as part of Mr. Epstein's original motio their second service attempt in the On November 17, 2016, Plaintiffs chose instead to make only (and Plaintiffs' one and only 647 days since the original summons was issued to Mr. Epstein ) by leaving the summons service attempt during the period of extension granted by this Court ss, which was clearly not Mr. and amended complaint with a non-party at an office addre dural defects in connection with Epstein's personal residence. Among the multitude of proce tute service on Mr. Epstein in this that failed attempt, there is simply no legal authority for substi matter by leaving process at an office address. substitute service under limited Florida Statute Section 48.031 (2)(b) does allow 48.031(2Xb) substitute service is circumstances that are not applicable here. Under Section e of the business at the time of permitted on a sole proprietorship by serving the person in charg made at that place of business. service if two prior attempts to serve the owner have been in several respects. Plaintiffs' single attempt at service within this rule is faulty herein does not make claim As it relates to Mr. Epstein, the amended complaint filed d as a defendant in his individual against a business or fictitious entity. Mr. Epstein is name ss must be strictly construed and capacity. Statues governing substitute service of proce , Florida Appellate Court or FlaApp., must be strictly complied with. See Hauser Vs. Schiff nowhere in any of the papers filed by 341 So.2d 531 and cases cited therein. Moreover, of a sole proprietorship that does business Plaintiffs is it alleged that Mr. Epstein was the owner fact, the causes of action asserted against Mr. at the purported service address in St. Thomas. In dly personal conduct by Mr. Epstein in his Epstein in the amended complaint are for decide Mr. Epstein of any business at that office individual capacity unrelated to the operation by fi led herein does not sound in any type address, or anywhere else, for that matter. The complaint complained of do not and did not arise out of business related irregularity, and certainly, the acts n 48.031 (2)(b) is entirely inapplicable to the of business type activities. Florida Statute Sectio facts of this case. 48.031(2)(b) could be read to apply Even if, by some seetch of the imagination, section t), nowhere in Plaintiffs' notice of service of to service attempts on Mr. Epstein (which it canno by Plaintiffs is it alleged that two attempts to process, the affidavits or the other documents filed been made at this place of business. For personally serve Mr. Epstein as owner had previously ineffective. that reason alone, service must also be found to be EFTA00788369  St. The motion and notice filed by Plaintiffs assert that service is impossible on Little its face, as servic e of proce ss James, because this is a private island. Such assertion is absurd on in the l residential says takes place routinely on private property. Little St. James is one of severa cays may be by boat rather than car, but U.S. Virgin Islands. The mode of tmnsportatlon to such by boat is common- certainly service of process is possible on any of them. Access to such cays easily located on any place in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Little St. James is well-identified and iffs in connection map. As is evident from the photograph of Little St James provided by Plaint ng boat may access by with their motion, the Island features a sizable dock by which those arrivi , and as with any the Island. That dock effectively serves as the front door to Little St. James proce ss serve r from proceeding to private residence, there was absolutely nothing preventing a was certai available in nly the front door and inquiring of Mr. Epstein. Access to Little St. James this case and should have been attempted, but never was. n 48.031 (5) As a further example of Plaintiffs' defective service, Florida Statute Sectio one of the processes requires that a person serving process place on the first page of at least and initials for all n numb er served, the date and time of service, and his or her identificatio attached thereto is there any service of process. Nowhere in the notice or the documents in Plaintiffs' failed and information or indication that this requirement was complied with improper attempt at substitute service. that the person serving the In addition, Florida Statue Section 49.031 (1)(a) requires is being served. Nowhere in process inform the person served of the contents of that which attached thereto is it indicated Plaintiffs' motion, notice of service of process or the papers nt. or stated that Plaintiffs complied with even this basic requireme informed the attorney for the On December 7, 2016, the undersigned attorney improper and ineffective in that Plaintiffs that the November 17, 2016 service attempt was a Statutes Section 48.031. Copy it did not comply with the statutory requirements of Florid it A. Rather than attempt proper of December 7, 2016 letter attached hereto as Exhib extended service window granted by service even a single time before the expiration of the well after that window closed. Having the Court, Plaintiffs chose to do nothing until December 7, 2016, a full two months received the letter from Mr. Epstein's counsel on iffs certainly could have filed their before the expiration of the extension period, Plaint dant, Jeffrey Epstein, With Attached Motion For Ruling On Service Of Process on Defen so that if the Court found, as it should,. Order, before the expiration of the service window, have had sufficient time before the that Plaintiffs' service is defective, Plaintiffs would d, and as they have done for the past window closed to effectuate service properly. Instea ask this Court to again indulge their two years, Plaintiffs chose to do nothing. Now they ss order of this Court and hold that proper flagrant disregard for Florida law and the expre would fly in the face of Florida law. service has been obtained, even though, to do so inappropriate and ineffective in Because the attempted substitute service was Plaintiff's motion for ruling on service of numerous respects, the Court should not grant service of process on Jeffrey Epstein In this process, and should rule that there has been no Motion to Dismiss, which accompanies matter. Further, the Court should grant Epstein's this Memorandum. EFTA00788370  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE oing has been electronically IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a true and correct copy of the foreg of March, 2017 to Joe Titone, furnished via email and/or E-file on the 30th day joetitono708@comr,ast.net. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A. Counsel for Epstein 250 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 6554777 - Telephone (561) 83 - - E-Mail: By: /s/ W. Chester Brewer, Jr, W. CHF,STER BREWER, JR., ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 261858 EFTA00788371  W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW SUL111 1400 250 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE SOUTH WEST PALM BEACH, VLORMA 31401.5086 TEUTPHON13 (RS I) 65SAM FAX (561) 8354691 December 2, 2016 Via Email: joetitone708(geomcastnet Joe Titone, Esq. 621 S.E. 5th St Pompano Beach, FL 33060 Re: Service of Process Dear Joe, December 7, 2016 Via Email: Metitone708acomeastnet Joe Titone, Esq. 621 S.E. 56 Street Pompano Beach, FL 33060 Re: Service of Process Dear Joe: s that you filed in the Jean Luc Brunel/Jeffrey Epstein I have had an opportunity to review the Notice Service of Proces to serve runs afoul of Florida Statutes 48.031, as well as the case. From my review it is clear that once again the attempt F, I have attached a copy of that case for your ready reference. holding in the Third District in HAUSER VS. SCHIF of your clients' amended complaint Joining Mr. Epstein as a It is now almost two years past the January 2015 filing date remind you that no attempt was made to even serve Mr. Epstein defendant to the original action filed in August 2014. I never filed with the Court in respect of that attempt, which until March 10, 2015. The required Notice of Service was Reconsideration was improper service. After rescheduling the you, yourself, conceded in your later filed Motion for separate times, you failed to appear at the July 27, 2016 hearing on Mr. Epstein's April 29, 2015 Motion to Quash four year after its original filing date. The court granted Mr. hearing on that Motion which was delayed for morn than a Epstein's motion in your absence. n for Reconsideration, you sought pardon from the Court for At the subsequent October 5, 2016 hearing on your Motio Epstein's Motion to Quash. You sought to excuse your your failure to appear at the July 27, 2016 hearing on Mr. even ow misunderstood the date on which you were M appear absence, claiming that doe to a brain issue you someh g date and specifi cally prevli in -aNaAnlati I'" n " 2016 hearin though it was you, yourself, who cancelled the scheduled the hearing to take place on July 27, 2016. EXHIBIT I A EFTA00788372 The Court's grant of an additional 120 days for service in deference to your medical issues did not confer on you a license to continue to disregard the Jurisdictional perquisites of proper service, with which you have failed to comply oven after having had 681 days to do so. The failure to properly serve Mr. Epstein again is evident from the face of your Notice of Service of Process. No response to your clients' Amended Complaint is due or should be expected unless and until proper service is made. I remind you that the Judge required such service be made not later than 120 days following his October 5, 2016 order. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, /s/ W Chester Brewer. Jr. W. Chaster Brewer, lair Attorney at Law One Clearlake Centro 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 1. '561.655.4777 17 561.835.134a EFTA00788373  •• ;: WHAM/311'i; WHIFF I •I : • • Fla. 531 peanaii"s4l a ltsI Smith, Mantras, Bmlth,'Parker& Werner, -40mith rEAMIRR, APPelf/Mbi• he linger, Miami Beath,. for:appellee. • • . •!kit daft..4 pl i twor ; . Before:HENDRY; t 7., PEARSON, 7, aid SACK,: MARTIN,: Associate ludas, ,Haan Apartimmt Hotel, dippelite, • SACK, MARTIN,. Associate Judge. District Court Appeal' Fililds; • • In ad attempt to perfect para . °nil fiery . ioe of proof:ea tiPoithe appellant, Cite Freddy Carrera -went to the Office of Fleetwood Jet .11, ISTI. r. r Iturines Agency, on the Bth 'flair of sea 'Biscayne •Boulevard, Mkmt, fdr, Carreras, I • Defendant hi,. civil minim! Moved. to ttpoh his arrival spoke to a secretary 'lad diamies for lack of jurind[ddiet dteir iho informed her he had come to serve the person and inaufficieat service of process. 'appellant with a paper. ; Thereafter,' with- The Circuit Court, Dade County, Paul Bak- *it wing the appellant, Mr. Carreras left er, J., denied the motion to diantisa, and the :rum:bons and coriplaint with the secre- plaintiff' apperchal. The District Court of tary andliopartod, He did not, at any time, Appeal, Sack, Moran, Associate Judge, held infOrmihe secretary ructothe nature of the that aubstrtated service of 'Prdtiess at /de- fondant's office 'upon a secretary therein 11] •Based .the 7OrtliftiPlic Sb3. did 'not' Comply with applicable statute or last moved tp &amiss for leek of jtuitdie- pm:deka& • • ' Eon over the persoc, insufficiency. of proo- ena, and loruffIdency of service of .prosear on the ground that process was not properly honied, purriaht 'to Section' 48.081; Fled& Statutes (2975). By this appal, the appel- •• • Substituted • eervieu • of ennInen3 sad lant challenges the caireetness of the trial complaint at defendant's place of business court's denial of the motion to dlanthe. We was insufficient where summons and com- are with 'the appellant and hereby ra- e:at were merely left with defendant's vine, setretag: Wesel FAX .4 Z. Proem owt7 •: ' • • ; (2,3) Section 48.081: 'Florida Statutes (WM) reads is folloits: • • • • • Statutes governing substituted service of must he strictly construed had "Service of original process is made by delivering a copy [of It] to the person to must be strictly complied • with.. West's be sawed with a copy of the complaint, F.S.A. 4 18.031. petition or other Initial plead* or paper a. Preece sole or by leaving the copies at his usual place .For -purpose .or statute, providing 'for of abode with some person of the family abbilittited process, "Orrin of the family" whaler fifteen years if age M. older and may be a visitor for prolonged period in informing the poreon•rif their contents. abode of 'person • to be served, bat person Minors who sip at have been married actually served most be residing in his shall be served as provided by this sea home. Wart's F.S.A. I 48.081. Soo." Sea Pultation Words and Phrases Statute, governing substituted service of for other Judicial constructions and premix emit bo strictly construed and must definitions. " . • be strictly oomplied with. American Liber- • • . m ty lasumnee Company v. Maddpx, 238 Bold • Chavolo & Feldman; Miamratul.BoWard lid (Plaid D.C.A. 10/0); Athil'ito Linda, Herewith, Tallahassee, for 'Swell:tit:I. The v. Rossmoute, 271" 80.241 - Si (112.2d EFTA00788374  ans,..2d SERIFS 341 SOU"fitERN REro • • 532 Fie. ,.. attempt- l pla ce of Sc hw art z, J., of burglary, robbery, he ap- 19/2X The term "usua 1, Florida ed murder and grand larceny, and al held ction 48.03 of Appe abode" contained, in Sewhere the person is pealed. The District Court nt and accom. an s t evidence that de fen da Restates (1976) me e of service. State tha trickery rather actually living at the.tim 496, 196 So. 146 plies gained •entry through .- did not proecnt v. Heffernan, 142 Fla rson of the fain- than breaking and entering rglary convic- (1040). Furthermore, a "pe s bu ersible error its regard a prolonged period rev be said that pre. Cy" may bo a visitor for n to be served, but tion but that it could not laint to change to the abode of the perso peraon actually trial ertieidnient to comp the assault to at• there is no queetkm that his hide. . Sang- ono count from aggravited was not preju. ng in t-degree mu rde r served must be raidi 5 (Fla.8rd tempted firs sentence r. Me.Elnea, 278 Sold 67 Casualty tidal and, hence, conviction and Coots v. Ma ryl an d empte d =t inier in 4 (F1 2.1 1d D. C. A. under such count for att uired to be. ro• 69 was req Company, 806 Sold the wand degree W76). verse d fo r ne w tri al g, there Is no wity in part and . In light of the foregoin e su bs titu ted w rit e Attinned !n Part, reversed this court can co ns tru d. ice upon a sate- remande of proms at a man's off compliance with titute fiery therein to cons 031, Florida Stat. the terms of Se cti on 42 44011074/ is so , no tw ith sta nding a 1. Criminal law for attempted eta (1975). Th is es tio n wa s in Conviction and sentence failure to show the office in qu e wag required a co nc lus ive mu rder In the second degre fact the appellant's off ice an d now tri since although al ss se rve r tai led to to be reversed for dment to showing that the pro ce the co nte nM of the re wa s doubt that pretrial amen to e count from aggra- 'inform the secretary as complaint to change on pted flrat-degrae the pa pe rs. vated as sa ult to att em appealed is hereby d fendant; reviewing Therefore, the order' remanded to the murder prejudice desition to hold on the us e Is In a po !evened, and the ca r proceedings not in- court was not s not prejudicial. trial court for fur the word tha t it wa consistent he rew ith . • . an de d, wi th dl r i oc tio nt 2. Burglary sin/ fri th or Reversed and rem ined by 'Whore entnuthe I/obta wi ll sta nd ; rgl ary fraud, a conviction for bu dant and aceom- fen hence, evidence that de gh trickery rather ou lilies gained entry thr d tering did sot ak ing an en than by bre re ve rtib le er ro r as regards burglary present conviction. NF ., Ap pe lla nt, Anthony John PEDO v. 'Dna' .Mishkin and David B, Javits, a, Ap pe lle e. The STATE of Florid *Miami, for appellant. ty. Gen., twid Ira N. Na 74 -44 1. . Robert L. Sitevin, At for appellee. Loewy, Ant. Atty. De n., peal of Florida, District Court of Ap iet, Third Dlatr and PEARSON Before HENDRY, 0. 3., Jan. 11, 1077. and HAVERYIELD, n. 27 , 19 77 . Rehearing Denied Ja PER CURIAM. . • • , john Pedone was , • , for e the The defendant Anthony Defindant wit h co nv ict ed .be