EFTA00797675Dataset 9
2018-09-1413p3,780w
…their Amended Complaint—in January 2015. Ten months later, on October 5, 2016, after ruling as deficient Plaintiffs' one and only service attempt on Epstein since filing of the Amended Complaint, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to effect service of process on Epstein within 120 days (i.e., by no later than February 2, 2017), and ruled that the case would be dismissed without further action of the Court if Plaintiffs failed to do so. Plaintiffs did not move to enlarge…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00797675.pdf
EFTA00307562Dataset 9
2011-05-2411p3,281w
…v. Daley, 799 F.2d 343, 348 (7th Cir. 1986). This Court ordered Plaintiffs to amend the Complaint to add Molyneux as a party for three reasons. The first is that without Molyneux in the case it will be difficult for the trier of fact to resolve the evidentiary issues that will arise. The second is that this Court lacks jurisdiction to compel the production of documents or deposition outside the Territory, requiring subpoenas to be localized in other jurisdictions…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00307562.pdf
EFTA00610037Dataset 9
2016-10-056p1,511w
…and files this Motion to Dismiss, and as good grounds therefore states as follows: 1. On October 5, 2016, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to effect service on Mr. Epstein within 120 days of the date of that order (i.e., by no later than February 2, 2017) and ruled that if Plaintiffs did not effect service within that time period, this case would be dismissed with prejudice and "no further order of this Court shall be necessary." As fully explained…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00610037.pdf
EFTA00788364Dataset 9
2017-10-1919p6,183w
…and. as good grounds therefore states as follows: 1. On October 5, 2016, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to effect service on Mr. Epstein within 120 days of the date of that order (i.e., by no later than February 2, 2017) and ruled that if Plaintiffs did not effect service within that time period, this case would be dismissed with prejudice and "no further order of this Court shall be necessary." As fully explained below, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully moves…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00788364.pdf
EFTA00800147Dataset 9
2017-10-1618p5,835w
…and files this Motion to Dismiss, and as good grounds therefore states as follows: 1. On October 5, 2016, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to effect service on Mr. Epstein within 120 days of the date of that order (i.e., by no later than February 2, 2017) and naiad that if Plaintiffs did not effect service within that time period, this case would be dismissed with prejudice and "no further order of this Court shall be necessary." As fully explained…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00800147.pdf