075.pdf

42540143v1 Troutman Sanders LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 troutman.com Bennet J. Moskowitz bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com June 19, 2020 Via ECF Hon. Katherine Polk Failla Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re:Jane Doe, 1:19-cv-08673 (KPF) (DCF) Dear Judge Failla: We represent Defendants Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the “Co-Executors”), in the above-referenced action. We write to further supplement the Co-Executors’ pending motion to dismiss (ECF Doc. 47) with the enclosed copy of the Opinion & Order entered June 10, 2020 by The Hon. Edgardo Ramos in another personal injury action against the Co-Executors (Lisa Doe v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Joint Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, et al., 19-cv-07773 (ER) (DCF)). In His Honor’s Opinion & Order, Judge Ramos grants the Co- Executors’ motion to dismiss in part, including by dismissing the plaintiff’s punitive damages claim against them as a matter of law on grounds applicable to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages in this action. Therefore, there are now three decisions by two S.D.N.Y. judges dismissing claims for punitive damages against the Co-Executors. (See ECF Nos. 61 and 64.) Respectfully submitted, s/Bennet J. Moskowitz Bennet J. Moskowitz cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 75 Filed 06/19/20 Page 1 of 30 troutmariP sanders UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LISA DOE, OPINION & ORDER 19 Civ. 7773 (ER) Plaintiff, – against – DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN, ET AL. Defendants. RAMOS, D.J.: Lisa Doe brings this action for alleged sex trafficking and abuse she suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein (now-deceased) and three of his associated business entities, which are alleged to have facilitated and participated in Epstein’s conduct. This action is one of several brought in this District by Epstein’s alleged victims. The Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for battery, sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Torture Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”) against Epstein’s estate, and for TVPA violations and negligence against Financial Trust Company, Inc. (“FTC”), NES, LLC (“NES”) and HBRK Associates, Inc. (“HBRK,” and together with FTC and NEC, the “Corporate Defendants”). Defendants move to dismiss two of the claims against Epstein’s estate as being duplicative or time-barred, all of the claims against the Corporate Defendants for being improperly pled or time-barred, and the punitive damages claims against Epstein’s estate on the grounds that punitive damages are not available against deceased defendants. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Case 1:19-cv-07773-ER-DCF Document 66 Filed 06/09/20 Page 1 of 29 Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 75 Filed 06/19/20 Page 2 of 30 2 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from Doe’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 41). Epstein is alleged to have been a man of enormous wealth who “had a compulsive sexual preference for young females,” some as young as 14 years old, and who is alleged to have acted on that sexual preference for decades. (Doc. 41 at 19.) According to the Amended Complaint, and as relayed in the criminal indictment against Epstein, which is cited in the Amended Complaint and included as an exhibit thereto (the “Indictment”), Epstein enticed and recruited minor girls to visit his mansion in Manhattan to engage in sex acts with him, after which they were given hundreds of dollars in cash. (Id. ¶ 26.) The Indictment also alleges that Epstein caused others to entice and recruit minor girls to engage in sex acts with him. (Id.) In order to maintain a supply of victims, Epstein paid some of his victims to recruit other girls to be similarly abused by him. (Id. ¶ 27.) Victims were “initially recruited to provide ‘massages’ to Epstein, which would be performed nude or partially nude, would become increasingly sexual in nature, and would typically include one or more sex acts.” (Id. ¶ 30.) A. The Alleged Conduct Against Doe Doe alleges that she was one of these victims, and has been considered as such by the Government. (Id. ¶ 32.) Doe alleges that she was 17 when she was first sexually assaulted by Epstein in 2002. (Id. ¶ 75.) An avid dancer aspiring to a professional career in the field, Doe was approached at a New York dance studio by an associate of Epstein’s who wished to hire Doe to teach a dance-based exercise class to a wealthy individual, later revealed to be Epstein. (Id. ¶¶ 76-77.) Doe went to Epstein’s Manhattan property, where she met Epstein. (Id. ¶¶ 78-80.) Epstein engaged Doe in conversation and told her that he was closely connected to major dance companies in New York City, was personal friends with influential figures in dance, and that he could use his resources to further Doe’s dance career. (Id. ¶¶ 81-83.) After making these representations, Epstein required Doe “to engage in various sexually-charged stretching activities.” (Id. ¶ 84.) After the Case 1:19-cv-07773-ER-DCF Document 66 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 29 Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF-DCF Document 75 Filed 06/19/20 Page 3 of 30 3 initial session, Epstein asked Doe to return the following day for another session, and when she did, Epstein “was again only interested in sexually-charged stretching activities that involved [Doe] sitting on top of his body and pressing her body up against his in other manners.” (Id. ¶¶ 88-89.) Sometime thereafter, the associate who had initially approached Doe at her dance studio, called her on the telephone and told her that Epstein would like her to return to give him a massage. (Id. ¶ 92.) The associate explained that Doe would be paid $100 per hour to conduct the massage if she kept her clothing on, or $300 per hour if she performed the massage with her clothing off. (Id. ¶ 93.) Doe went to the Epstein property and met him in a massage room. (Id. ¶¶ 95-96.) Epstein instructed Doe on how he wished her to massage him, which Doe listened to “very intently, knowing that she had to comply with his demands if she wanted him to use his connections to help her—and, conversely, not punish her if she failed to comply—with her dance career.” (Id. ¶ 96.) During this massage, Epstein forcibly inserted a sex toy into Doe’s vagina, instructed her to squeeze his nipples, and began to masturbate. (Id. ¶¶ 98-99.) Despite this sexual assault, Doe, “feeling she had no choice, especially in light of the promises and implied threats” made by Epstein, returned to the property on many occasions thereafter, where she was continually sexually abused, and after each such occasion was paid hundreds of dollars. (Id. ¶ 104.) This conduct continued for approximately eight years, until 2010. (Id. ¶¶ 108, 118.) B. The Alleged Involvement of the Corporate Defendants Doe alleges that each of the Corporate Defendants performed actions or failed to perform actions that placed Doe in danger of being sexually abused by Epstein and assisted him in concealing his sexually abusive acts. 1 1 FTC is a U.S. Virgin Islands corporation, conducting business in New York, among other places. (Id. ¶ 8.) NES is a domestic limited liability company, registered in and conducting business in, among other places, New York. (Id. ¶ 9.) And, HBRK is a domestic business corporat