001.pdf

1 of 316 July 18, 2008 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 1 of 100 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: ------------- JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE# I, Plaintiff, \'S. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, HALEY ROBSON, and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. I NOTICE OF REMOVAL FILED by DJ D.C. ELECTR ONIC STEVEN M . LARIMORE CLERK U.S . DIST. CT. S . D. OF FLA . · MIAMI In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and 1332(a)(l), the defendants, Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Haley Robson, hereby remove this action 1 from Palm Beach County Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and respectfully state as follows: Introduction Six months ago, this plaintiff filed virtually the identical lawsuit in this Court. See Jane Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Doe v. Epstein et al. , Case No. 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX MB (Fla . 15th Cir. Ct. filed Mar. 6, 2008) . Lewis TeinP1. \ I I, ' I ' '- 1 ~ -· \ I I \\I 3059 GRAND AVENU E, SUITE 340, (O CO NUT GROVE, FLORIOA 33133 2 of 316 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 2 of 100 Jan. 24, 2008) (the "First Federal Action"). The First Federal Action named Jeffrey Epstein as the sole tortfeasor, made the identical operative allegations as the instant Amended Complaint, and demanded damages of $50 million. (The amount of the demand against Epstein is evidently the product of recent reports in the press that Epstein is wealthy.) The First Federal Action was quickly followed by a series of substantially identical "Jane Doe" lawsuits, all filed by the same attorney in a three-month span. Compare Jane Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 24, 2008), with Jane Doe #2 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80119-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Feb. 6, 2008) (asserting identical causes of action based on the same operative allegations), Jane Doe #3 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80232-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Mar. 5, 2008) (same), Jane Doe #4 v. Epstein, No. 08-CV-80380-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Apr. 14, 2008) (same), and Jane Doe #5 v. Epstein, No. 08-80381-CV-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Apr. 14. 2008) (same). On February 20, amid these filings, Jane Doe # 1 was deposed in State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502006CF009454AXXXMB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct., filed Jul. 19, 2006 ), a parallel state-court criminal action. During that deposition, she made numerous admissions that completely undermined the allegations against Epstein that she had pled in her complaint. A copy of her deposition, with names 2 Lewis Tein,,,. 3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340, (OCON UT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 3 of 316 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 3 of 100 redacted, is attached hereto (Exhibit A). Two days later, counsel for Jane Doe #1 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in the First Federal Action. See Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe # 1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: Sarah Kellen, Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and Haley Robson, one of Jane Doe #1 's contemporaries. These defendants have nothing to do with the plaintiffs case against Mr. Epstein, except that the presence of Haley Robson as a defendant in this new case, because she is a citizen of Florida (Am. Compl. ,i 4), would ostensibly prevent complete diversity. 2 As discussed below, however, Haley Robson was named in the refiled lawsuit only to d,;!stroy diversity jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court . 3 Haley 2 Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. ~ 5), and is therefore a nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 3 Section 3509(k) of Title 18, United States Code, provides as follows: If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is pending until its final adjudication in the trial court. 3 Lewis Teinl'I. 3059 GRAND AVENUE, Sum 340, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 4 of 316 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 4 of 100 Robson, besides having nothing to do with the substantive allegations of the plaintiff's $50,000,000 case, is a community-college student with no assets whatever. Even if this case purports to identify a new (and strategically nondiverse) tortfeasor, the refiled lawsuit is still directed against only one defendant-Jeffrey Epstein. Then and now, the operative allegations are the same: Jane Doe alleges that Jeffrey Epstein assaulted her "in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes." 4 (Am. Compl. , 18.) To sharpen her lawsuit, the plaintiff says she is seeking damages in connection with a "conspiracy" (Am. Compl. , 22), a "plan" (Am. Compl. , 32), a "scheme" (Am. Compl. , 32), and an "enterprise" (Am. Compl. , 32). These theories of liability, however, cannot be supported by the allegations in th1;! Amended Complaint. Even if everything in the Amended Complaint were true, recovery against Haley Robson, under any formulation, is impossible under Florida law. Focusing on the real parties to this controversy, the instant case could have ( once again) been brought here in federal court-just like the four other "Jane 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). 4 Chapter 800, Florida Statutes, is entitled, "Lewdness; Indecent Exposure." 4 Lewis_ Tein 1•1. 3059 GRAND AvENUE, SUITE 340, (OCON UT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 5 of 316 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 5 of 100 Doe" lawsuits presently pending against Epstein, filed by this plaintiffs former lawyer. This case 1s properly removed to federal court, first, because there is complete diversity among the real parties-in-interest, second, because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and third, because this Notice complies with the requirements of28 U.S.C. § 1446. Discussion A. This case is properly removable because it falls within the original jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even though it was reconfigured to look like a state-court lawsuit, this action falls squarely within the bounds of the diversity-jurisdiction statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(l) (establishing that federal district courts have original jurisdiction over cases where the amount in controversy [is more than $75,000] ... and [ when the controversy] is between