Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Leon Black And The Reply Memo In Further Support Of Dismissing Jane Doe's Claims (Part 2) (10/3/26)

Transcript

Leon Black And The Reply Memo In Further Support Of Dismissing Jane Doe's Claims (Part 2) (10/3/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to another episode of
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're continuing on with
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: Leon Black and his motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: against him by Jane Doe. B. Plaintiff overreads Engelman and Gooding.
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff's other principal argument is that binding precedent has already
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: disposed of defendant's preemption argument, opposition at fore. asserting that
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: controlling precedent mandates denial of defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: bases that contention largely on Engelman, which was adopted by
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: a judge of this court in Gooding, but as explained
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: in the motion to dismiss, and as even plaintiff ultimately
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: appears to recognize, Engelman and Gooding do not address the
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: question presented here. CMTD 19-20, Opposition at 5-6, backtracking to
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: the argument that there is no reason not to apply
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: the sound logic of Engelman to the question in this case.
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: In any preemption claim, there are at least two statutes
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: to analyze. One, a statute from the superior sovereign that
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: allegedly has preemptive effect, and two, a statute from the
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: inferior sovereign that is allegedly preempted. The defendant in Engelman
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: contended that New York's one-year statute of limitations for assault
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: and related torts, NYCPLR, Section 215.3, and its three-year statute
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: of limitations for actions to recover on a statutory liability, NYCPLR,
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: Section 214.2, preempted application of a two-year, seven-year default limitation
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: period in the VGM VPL. See Engelman at 194 AD.
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: In this case, by contrast, none of those statutes are
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: part of the preemption analysis. Instead, Defendant contends that 1.
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: The 2019 through 2021 filing window established by the CVA
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: revival provision preempts application of 2. The 2023-2025 filing window
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: established by the NYC revival statute. To the extent plaintiff
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: contends that Engelman's mandate, any answer to the question here,
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: Opposition 2, that contention is belied by Engelman itself as
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: depicted in the table below. those distinctions are not minor differences.
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: The allegedly preempting provisions invoked in Engelman were general limitation
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: periods applicable to a broad range of torts and actions
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: to recover on statutes. Neither even mentions sexual assault claims.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: The CVA revival provision, by contrast, is far more precise.
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: It's targeted expressly at particular categories of sexual assault claims,
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: even specifying the same statutory cross-reference as the VGM-VPL provision
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: that plaintiff invokes in Article 130 of the New York
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: Penal Law. See MTD at 12-14. In another stark distinction,
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: the limitations provision at issue in Engelman applied unless a
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: different time is prescribed by law, Engelman 194, AD at
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: 3 and D at 32. Meanwhile, the CVA revival provision
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: includes diametrically opposite language. Its specified reopening window governs notwithstanding
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: any provision of law which imposes a period of limitation
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: to the contrary. NYCPLR Section 214G. Plaintiff is wrong in
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: asserting both that Engelman is governing and that there is
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: no reason not to apply the logic of Engelman to
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: a markedly different preemption question in this case. Plaintiff's reliance
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: on Gooding is misplaced for all the same reasons. The
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: question in Gooding was the same one presented in Engelman,
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: and the Gooding Court deferred the first Department's Engelman decision,
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: Gooding 2022 WL 1104-750-2. As just explained, however, Engelman's holding
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: is inapplicable to the questions in this case. C. Plaintiff
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: otherwise fails to overcome conflict and field preemption. Plaintiff offers
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: no basis to overcome the straightforward application of conflict and
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: field preemption principles. On conflict preemption, plaintiff reiterates the misguided
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: contention that notwithstanding clause in the CVA revival provision does
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: not affect other statutory schemes with different statute of limitations.
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: As explained above, however, the plain purpose of the notwithstanding
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: clause is to preclude application of the contrary statutes of limitations.
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff also invokes one sentence in Gooding stating that the
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: defendant in the case identified nothing that the state legislature
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: has done to preempt the VGM statute of limitations. But
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: that observation has no bearing here because the defendant in
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: Gooding did not raise the CVA revival provision as a
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: basis for preemption. See Defense Memo of Law Gooding Supra
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: 2022 WL SDNY January 10, 2022 and because Gooding did
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: not consider the NYC revival statute which had not yet
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: taken effect. While citing those in opposite authorities, plaintiff essentially
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: disregards the numerous cases cited by defendant in which New
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: York and other courts have found preemption where, as here,
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: a municipality sought to extend a state mandate limitation. CEG,
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: Lansdowne Entertainment Corporation, versus New York City Department of Consumer Affairs.
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: Holding that a city's attempt to supplant a time limit
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: fixed by the state creates a direct conflict giving rise
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: to preemption. Turnpike Woods, Inc., versus Town of Stony Point,
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: 70 NY 2D, 1987, holding that a municipality's attempt to
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: extend state prescribed period was inconsistent with state law and
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: therefore invalid. See also Save Lafayette Trees, versus City of Lafayette,
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: 32 Cal APP, 5th, 148, Central Appeals Court of California, 2019,
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: holding that a municipal law that attempted to extend state
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: limitations period for a category of suits could not be
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: harmonized with state law and therefore was preempted. Plaintiff's only
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: response seems to be that those cases involve different subject matter.
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: See opposition at 11. That is true, but the case
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: is nevertheless established a legal principle that applies directly here.
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: When a municipality tries to override a time period fixed
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: by the state, it creates a head-on collision, and must
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: give way under conflict preemption. Lansdowne 74 NY 2D at 764.
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: As for the field preemption, plaintiff again misreads the notwithstanding
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: clause at the outset of the CVA revival provision, then
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: makes the puzzling suggestion that the CVA revival provision may
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: not be applicable here because it does not explicitly state
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: that its purview includes the city of New York. Opposition
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: at 10. But state laws need not explicitly state that
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: they apply to New York City any more than they
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: must state that they apply to Buffalo or Albany or Rochester.
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: And in any event, New York state legislators unequivocally stated
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: that they expected the CVA to apply to the entire state.
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: CEG-NY Senate Debate on Senate Bill S-2440, January 28, 2019,
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: at 754. The Child Victims Act will finally give all
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: survivors of childhood sexual abuse in the state of New
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: York the justice that they deserve. ID at 773. Today
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: is a major step forward, finally getting something done that
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: helps every single victim in the state. Emphasis added. Plaintiffs'
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: proposed carve-out for New York City has no basis in
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: any accepted source of statutory meaning and does not appear
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: to have ever been considered by any court applying the
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: CVA to New York City. CEG CM vs. EST of Archibald,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: 2022 WL 1030, 123 at 8 SDNY April 6, 2022.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: The CVA revival provision text structure and history further reinforce
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: its comprehensive and preemptive scope. As noted, the CVA revival
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: provision applies to every civil claim brought against any party
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: for any of the specified forms of sexual assault in
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: New York, NY CPLR Section 214G, which undisputedly includes plaintiff's claims.
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: See Doe v. Gonzalez, 2023 WL 5979182 at 1 N1 EDNY,
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: August 4, 2023, accepting that the CVA revival provision can
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: be invoked to revive an expired VGM VPL claim. Report
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: and recommendation adopted in part and rejected in part on
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: non-material grounds. 2023 WL 6211-023-EDNY, September 25th, 2023. The CVA's
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: revival provision was also enacted as part of a comprehensive
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: and detailed regulatory scheme, here one addressing the timing of
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: sexual assault claims against minors of the kind that New
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: York courts have found to support field preemption. Edison Company v.
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: Town of Red Hook, New York, 60NY. 99-105-1983. More broadly,
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: the CVA revival provision reflects the state's legislature's careful balancing
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: of competing priorities, empowering victims to file claims that they
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: otherwise could not, while also recognizing that limitation periods serve
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: important purposes and that reviving expired causes of action is
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: an extreme step that must be narrowly construed to satisfy
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: constitutional constraints. Anonymous v. Castanaglia 210 A.D. 940-942, 2nd Department, 2300.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: 2022 ceg spiro real estate of torres verse health port
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: technology llc f.supp 3d 259 277 and 278 sdny 2014
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: explaining the important policy considerations underlying New York's statute of limitations,
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: namely to protect parties from the prosecution of stale claims,
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: where it might be impossible to establish the truth. The
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: CVA revival provision, like most if not all legislation, is
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: thus the use product of some compromise. It's not the
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: province of this court to rebalance that compromise, but to
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: enforce the statutes as enacted. Here, that means allowing expired
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: VGM-VPL claims like plaintiff's to be revived during the window
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: prescribed by the state legislature, but not during the contrary
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: window that New York City attempted to create. Finally, plaintiff
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: observes that NY state legislators already are proposing that another
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: look-back period under the CVA be enacted in the near future.
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: If such a proposal becomes law, plaintiff might be able
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: to pursue the claim at issue here. But the prospect
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: of a future amendment only underscores that current law does
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: not permit plaintiffs' claim to proceed and that it must
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: accordingly be dismissed. Conclusion For the above reasons, the court
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: should dismiss this complaint with prejudice. This document was signed
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: by Michael Karlinsky of Quinn Emanuel and it was dated
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: November 17th. All the information that goes with this episode
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.