EFTA00727455.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAMOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, / DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO STRIKE "PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102's RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF C.M.A.'s MOTION TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTFOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, (dated 5/21/091 Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned counsel, moves to strike Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 And Jane Doe No. 102's Response In Support Of Plaintiff Motion To File Sur-Reply To Defendant's Reply To Plaintiff's Memorandum In Response To Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State A Cause of Action And Motion for More Definite Statement, dated May 21, 2009, (hereinafter "JD 101 & 102's response"). Defendant states: 1. JD 101 & 102's response is required to be stricken as there is absolutely no legal basis which would allow them as Plaintiffs in another action to file substantive arguments on behalf of another Plaintiff, in a separate action, in an effort to advance their position in another action and in an effort to rectify the Plaintiff failure to, and choice not to, address substantive legal issues in her response to Defendant's motion to dismiss in this action. Simply put, JD 101 & 102 are not parties EFTA00727455 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 4 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 2 to this action; they have each filed separate and distinct actions against Defendant EPSTEIN. Any substantive arguments they want to make can be advanced in each of their separately filed actions, not in an action filed by another Plaintiff, n who like JD 101 & 102 has her own legal representative. 2. This Court's previously entered order regarding consolidation, dated May 14, 2009 [Document 82], was for common discovery and procedural motions only. There is absolutely nothing in the order that would allow the multiple Plaintiffs in the separately filed actions against EPSTEIN to file multiple and duplicative substantive motions and legal memorandums in all of the cases. JD 101 & 102's response concedes that the issue raised is a substantive, not procedural one. (JD 101 & 102's response, ¶5). 3. Allowing the multiple plaintiffs to "gang-up" in the separately filed actions flies in the face of the constitutional guarantees of due process. As well, it is a waste of judicial resources, and would be more costly and timely if multiple non-parties were allowed to file substantive motions and legal memorandum in the various actions against EPSTEIN. Each Plaintiff has her own action in which to fight her substantive legal battles, based on the distinct facts and issues as raised by the pleading in a particular case. A plaintiff should not be given multiple bites of multiple apples in order to advance her position in a separately filed action. 4. Moreover, this Court, on May 28, 2009, denied Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to file brief as Amicus Curiae (DE 63). EPSTEIN's Response in Opposition to File brief as Amicus Curiae is, therefore, incorporated herein by reference. For the same reasons EFTA00727456 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 4 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 3 outlined in the Response in Opposition to file brief as Amicus Curiae, as well as the facts set forth in this motion, the Court should deny the motion to file sur-reply. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court strike Plaintiff JD 101 & 102's response. Counsel for Defend EPSTEIN Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document Is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of Mav, 2009 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 2290 10th Avenue North 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 404 Suite 1400 Lake Worth, FL 33461 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Counsel for Plaint unse or e en ant Jeffrey Epstein Jack Scarola, Esq. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & 250 S. Australian Avenue Shipley, P.A. Suite 1400 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33401 West Palm Beach. FL 33409 I Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Adam Horowitz, Esq. Spencer Todd Kuvin, Esq. Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq. EFTA00727457 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 4 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et ei. Page 4 Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. Leopold Kuvin, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite #200 Miami FL 33160 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 ntiffs Jane Does 2-7 or Plaintiff Brad Edwards, Esq. Isidro Manuel Garcia, Esq. Law Office of Brad Edwards & Associates Garcia Elkins & Boehringer 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 224 Datura Avenue, Suite 900 Hollywood, FL 33020 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Counsel for Plaintiffs Jane Does 101 & Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe 102 Respectfully submitted, By: ROBERT D. CR ON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar N.{'224162 I AEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUITIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00727458