Beyond The Horizon
The Memorandum Of Law In Support Of The Cross Motion Against USVI (Part 1) (7/12/24)
A "Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend Pursuant to FRCP R. 15(a)(3) and for Discovery Addressed to Jurisdiction and Venue" typically involves the following components:
- Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend:
- FRCP Rule 15(a)(3): Refers to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 15, which governs amendments to pleadings. This rule allows a party to amend its pleading with the court’s permission or the opposing party’s written consent.
- Purpose: The plaintiffs are seeking the court’s permission to amend their original complaint or other pleadings. This could involve adding new facts, claims, or correcting errors.
- Discovery Addressed to Jurisdiction and Venue:
- Jurisdiction: Refers to the court's authority to hear a case. Plaintiffs may seek discovery (i.e., the pre-trial process where parties obtain evidence from each other) to gather information supporting the court’s jurisdiction over the defendants.
- Venue: Refers to the geographic location where the lawsuit is filed. Plaintiffs may also seek discovery to establish that the chosen venue is proper.
- Supporting Arguments: The memorandum will present legal arguments and precedents supporting the plaintiffs' request to amend their pleadings. This could involve demonstrating why the amendments are necessary and how they will not prejudice the defendants.
- Discovery Needs: It will outline the specific discovery the plaintiffs seek to gather evidence relevant to jurisdiction and venue issues. This might include interrogatories, depositions, or requests for documents.
- Legal Standards: The memorandum will discuss the legal standards under Rule 15(a)(3) for granting leave to amend and any relevant case law that supports the plaintiffs' position.
- Legal Strategy: Amending pleadings can be crucial for refining legal strategies and ensuring that all relevant facts and legal arguments are presented.
- Ensuring Proper Jurisdiction and Venue: Properly addressing jurisdiction and venue is essential for the court's ability to hear the case and for ensuring a fair trial location.
In this episode, we continue our dive into the lawsuit between the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Virgin Islands.
(commercial at 7:52)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
- Duration:
- 11m
- Broadcast on:
- 12 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
Tastemakers in the watch game like Gear Patrol have called their ceramic watch material almost magical and deemed their adventure-ready CaliDiver automatic GMT the best sub $500 dive watch. Full stop. It's our friends at Movement. A Movement Watch is built to run with precision, purpose, and X-factors needed to make the best of the time you keep. From their best-selling automatics to innovative ceramics to more clean, inspired designs. Find your new movement now at MVMT.com. That's MVMT.com. Looking for a financial institution that has fewer fees, better rates, and gives back to the local community? As one of Colorado's largest credit unions, Belco offers great rates on products like our free boost interest checking and lower rates on loans, including our home equity choice line. Bank virtually anytime, anywhere, through online banking and our mobile app. Becoming a member has never been easier. Visit belco.org or stop by any Belco branch, membership eligibility required, equal housing opportunity, all own subject to approval, insured by NCUA. Belco, banking for everyone. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're going to continue on taking a look at the survivors lawsuit that has been filed against the United States Virgin Islands. And this time we're getting a look at the Memorandum of Law in support of plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend pursuant to FRCP, R.15, A&3, and for discovery addressed to jurisdiction and venue. Case number 123-CV-10301-AS Preliminary Statement. Plaintives respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in support of their cross-motion to amend the first amended complaint, and to deem the proposed second amended complaint, which is intended to correct and clarify any inconsistencies and to cure any deficiencies cited by defendants timely filed. Further in the event that the court deems the SAC insufficiently specific plaintiff's request leave to conduct discovery addressed to jurisdiction and venue in this case given the notoriously non-public nature of defendant's actions and Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise. The operative facts. This is a significant case brought by sexual abuse survivors seeking to hold the USVI and other individuals responsible for their role in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking ring. The problem is that much of the evidence concerning jurisdiction is not publicly available and defendants will not provide it so plaintiffs do not have it. There can be no dispute but the defendants and in particular the USVI are in near exclusive possession of the evidence concerning this court's jurisdiction over them, venue, and even the underlying claims. To the extent that plaintiffs have proffered allegations supporting jurisdiction and venue, it largely arises or derives from the little evidence adduced and unredacted to the public in the actions brought by the USVI against its co-conspirator JP Morgan. Indeed, the limited disclosure in the USVI's lawsuit against JP Morgan, USVI versus JP Morgan, 22-CV-10904 was notorious in part because the evidence supporting the allegations was maintained in the most guarded manner. A very broad protective order was entered into which allowed the parties to redact, inter-elia, any information of a personal or intimate nature concerning any individual, Exhibit B. Given the broad scope of the protective order, the unsealed document shed little light on the underpinnings of the claims. For example, the flight logs which identified those traveling and furtherance of the enterprise are only partially disclosed. More importantly, many of the individuals deposed in the USVI's earlier actions are parties to this case, but their deposition transcripts are heavily redacted. For example, Congresswoman Plaskit and Cecile Dijang were deposed in that action yet only excerpts of those transcripts are available for public viewing. Also, and clearly relevant to jurisdiction, are the banking records which are entirely redacted in the USVI's earlier action. Those records were pivotal to the sex trafficking enterprise and are pivotal to the plaintiff's claims. The summary judgment papers in the USVI's earlier actions are filed entirely pursuant to the protective order. These documents which would summarize the evidence adduced during discovery that supports the claims or contradicts them are shielded from public view. Notably, the action was resolved before the court issued an opinion resolving these motions. Thus, plaintiffs do not have even the benefit of an order addressing the evidence. The USVI's participation in the enterprise was confirmed after JP Morgan asserted the affirmative defense of unclean hands and contributory negligence in the USVI versus JP Morgan action. On May 8th, 2023, the USVI moved to strike these affirmative defenses which prompted JP Morgan to oppose the motion citing evidence adduced during discovery, see exhibits C and D respectively. JP Morgan's papers, which were heavily redacted, contained sufficient evidence that was proffered to establish that the USVI was complicit in Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise and that payments were directed by defendants in this case from Epstein's New York City bank accounts to the USVI. Plaintives thus began the process of exploring the litigation and filing a complaint before the Adult Survivors Act window closed on November 23rd, 2023. Certainly in this case defendants have not volunteered any information or evidence affirmatively disproving jurisdiction, venue or the claims. They simply pointed to alleged gaps in plaintiff's pleadings knowing that the USVI has thus fully prevented plaintiffs from discovering the evidence in the earlier lawsuit that would facilitate litigation and resolution of this one. The USVI has also refused to turn over these documents which raises questions about what it contained therein. Consequently, plaintiffs have moved in the USVI's action for an order permitting them to intervene and to secure access to the disclosure pursuant to the same protective order in USVI vs JP Morgan exhibit E. Such disclosure would conserve resources while continuing to preserve the confidences in that action. Plaintives, who are the real victims of the sex trafficking enterprise, should not be denied access to the very evidence that would prove plaintiffs' claims in this suit. The argument point one. This court may exercise its broad discretion and grant leave to amend. Plaintives should be granted leave to amend the FAC pursuant to Fedarsiv P-15A to address the arguments raised by defendants in their motions and to clarify certain allegations. Exhibit A. Generally leave to amend should be freely given and the pro say, litigant, in particular should be afforded every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he has a valid claim. Madam of vs Selly 228, F.3D6881, 2nd Circuit 2000. Indeed is recently held by this court even when granting a motion to dismiss. Leave to amend at least one should normally be granted as a matter of course. Leave should not be denied unless there is evidence of undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice to the non-movement, or futility. Kavanaugh vs Ford Motor Company 2014 WL2048571, Eastern District of New York. While leave to amend a complaint may be denied when amendment would be futile, Tucker vs Philip Morris Company 470 F.3D481, 491, 2nd Circuit 2006. The standard for proving futility is quite high. A complaint is futile when as a matter of law any proposed amendments would fail to cure prior deficiencies. Where the deficiencies are substantive rather merely then consequences or in artful pleading, repleting would be futile and leave to amend should be denied. Lewis vs Experian Incorporated 2024 WL1308705 at 11, Eastern District of New York March 27, 2024. Leave to amend is not warranted where it is clear from the face of the complaint that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or that a claim cannot be stated as a matter of law. Hardy vs United States 501 F.SUPP 3D 152 162 Eastern District of New York 2020. The district court has broad discretion over whether to grant or deny the motion to amend, however outright refusal, to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is an abuse of discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of the federal rules. That motions to amend can planes be liberally granted absent a good reason to the contrary allowing disputes to be resolved upon the merits rather than on the basis of procedural technicalities. Although the decision whether to grant leave to amend is within the discretion of the district court refusal to grant leave must be based on a valid ground. Oliver Schools Incorporated vs Foley 930 F2D 248 252 N53 Second Circuit 1991 where the possibility exists that the defect can be cured and there is no prejudice to the defendant, leave to amend at least once should normally be granted as a matter of course. Plaintiffs submit that leave to amend should be granted to address defendant's concerns is raised in their four motions to dismiss. Moreover, Plaintiffs proposed SAC alleges a civil RICO violation which is grounded upon additional facts adduced by Plaintiffs from the very limited information that's publicly available to them. There is absolutely no evidence in the instant matter of undue delay, bad faith or undue prejudice to defendants by the requested amendment. As set forth and plaintiff's opposition, there is a meritist basis for jurisdiction over defendants and the causes of action have been pleaded with even greater specificity. This despite defendants efforts to prevent evidence pertaining to defendants involvement in the sex trafficking enterprise from ever seeing the light of day. This case where a government is charged with facilitating an international sex trafficking enterprise that was enjoyed by the most powerful men in the world without so much as a question from law enforcement officers over more than a decade. It's hardly surprising that the victims of the enterprise had difficulty in discovering evidence establishing their claims. Further, as discovery has not yet commenced and defendants have yet to answer the complaint, defendants cannot demonstrate prejudice will result from plaintiffs being granted leave to amend the complaint at this juncture. For these reasons and those explained below, plaintiffs respectfully ask this court to grant this motion in its entirety. Assuming our guendo that the court deems the SAC deficient, plaintiffs ask that the court deny leave to amend without prejudice to address any concerns this court may have about the sufficiency of the pleading. Alright, we're going to wrap up this episode right here and in the next episode, we're going to finish this bad boy off and we're going to pick up with point two. This court should exercise its broad discretion and direct discovery concerning the scope and extent of defendant's activities in New York. Alright, we're going to wrap this bad boy up right here and in the next episode, we're going to finish it off by picking up with point two. This court should exercise its broad discretion and direct discovery concerning the scope and extent of defendant's activities in New York. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.