Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Leon Black And The Reply Memo In Further Support Of Dismissing Jane Doe's Claims (Part 1) (10/5/26)

Transcript

Leon Black And The Reply Memo In Further Support Of Dismissing Jane Doe's Claims (Part 1) (10/5/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: In this episode we're diving right back in to the
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: lawsuit filed by Jane Doe against Leon Black. And this
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: time we're taking a look at the reply memorandum of
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: law in support of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: of Jane Doe. Case number 23-CV-06418 JGLC Jane Doe Plaintiff vs.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: Leon Black, the defendant. Preliminary Statement Plaintiff's claim is untimely
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: and should be dismissed for largely undisputed reasons, although she
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: seeks relief under the New York City's Victim of Gender-Motivated
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: Violence Protection Law, VGM-VPL, NYC Admin Code Section 10-1101. Based
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: on an alleged sexual assault when she was a minor,
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: she did not comply with either of the default limitation periods,
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: 7 and 9 years, set forth in the VGM VPL.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: She also did not comply with the two-year revival window
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: from August 2019 to August 2021. created by the New
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: York State in the Child Victims Act, which applies to
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: every civil claim brought against any party based on specified
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: sexual assaults against minors, notwithstanding any provision of law which
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: imposes a period of limitation to the contrary. It is
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: thus undisputed that plaintiff's claim can be timely only if
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: it was validly brought under New York City's 2022 amendment
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: to the VGM-VPL, which purports to revive otherwise barred VGM-VPL
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: claims if they are filed in a two-year window from
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: March 2023 to March 2025, NY Admin Code Section 10-1105.
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: But as explained in the motion to dismiss, that provision
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: is preempted as to minor victims like plaintiff because it
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: conflicts with a different window for the same claims set
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: forth by the New York State in the CVA revival provision.
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff's opposition confirms as much. She accepts that the CVA
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: covers her claim and that she should have filed during
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: the CVA's statewide revival period. Her attempt to file during
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: the city's contrary revival period is preempted by plain language
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: of the CVA and well-settled principles of conflict and field preemption.
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff's opposition underscores the weakness of her legal position and
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: Her lead argument is that notwithstanding clause in the CVA
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: revival provision permits the application of contrary revival periods, but
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: under the actual meaning of notwithstanding, the clause does just
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: the opposite. It forecloses application of the contrary window created
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: by the NYC revival statute. Plaintiff also relies heavily on
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: Engelman v. Rofe, but as her own description makes clear,
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: see Opposition 4-7. the preemption analysis in those decisions did
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: not involve either one of the statutory provisions at issue here.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: And the allegedly preempting provisions there, general, toward statutes, that
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: applied only unless a different time is prescribed by law,
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: Engelman 194, AD at 3D at 32, could not be
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: more different than the CVA revival position, which sets a
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: precise filing window for specifically defined claims, notwithstanding any contrary limitations, period.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff ends by suggesting that the New York State Legislature
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: may amend the CVA to reopen the filing period for
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: claims like hers. By focusing on the state legislature, she
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: is looking to the right place. But the legislature has
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: not delivered the relief she seeks. And unless it does,
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: neither can this court. The complaint should be accordingly dismissed.
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: The argument. Plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as untimely. Plaintiff's
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: complaint asserts a claim under the VGM VPL for a
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: sexual assault that allegedly occurred 21 years ago in 2002
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: when she was a minor. ECF number one. The parties
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: appear to agree that plaintiff could have brought the claim
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: during three different periods. One, within seven years of the
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: alleged assault, pursuant to the VGM VPL's default limitations period. Two,
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: within nine years of reaching age 18, pursuant to the
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: VGM VPL's special limitations period for minors. and three, between
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: August 2019 and August 2021, pursuant to the CVA revival provision.
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: But plaintiff did not bring the claim during any of
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: those periods. Instead, plaintiff seeks a fourth chance, contending that
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: her claim is timely based exclusively on the NYC revival statute,
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: which permits the filing of otherwise expired VGM-VPL claims between
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: March 2023 and March of 2025. As a municipal law, however,
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: the NYC revival statute is subject to preemption if it
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: conflicts with state law, a principle that plaintiff does not dispute.
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: And the NYC revival statute creates such a conflict. As
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: relevant and uncontested here, the NYC revival statute applies to
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: the same claims as the CVA revival provision, but creates
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: a different and conflicting period for reviving those claims. That
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: is an illustration of both fields and conflict preemption. The
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: NYC revival statute is thus inapplicable to Plaintiff. Her opportunity
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: to revive her expired claims came in the period created
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: by the New York State, August 2019 to 2021. But
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: that window is now closed. 2. Plaintiff's contrary arguments lack merit.
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff opposes that result based on her interpretation of both
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: statutory language and precedent. Neither line of argument is persuasive,
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: and Plaintiff fails to offer... any other basis to overcome
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: the straightforward application of conflict and field preemption principles. Plaintiff
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: misinterprets the relevant statutory language. Plaintiffs lead statutory argument that
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: the introductory clause of the CVA revival provision, which establishes
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: the 2019-2021 window for reviving expired claims like plaintiffs, notwithstanding
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: any provision of law which imposes a period of limitations
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: to the contrary. NYCPLR Section 214G expressly carves out other
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: limitation periods including the one created by the NYC Revival
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: Statute that she invokes. That is a baffling contention that
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: requires reading, notwithstanding, to mean the opposite of its actual definition.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: There is no ambiguity about the definition of notwithstanding. It
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: means despite, notwithstanding. Black's Law Dictionary, 11th edition, 2019. See
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. By creating a revival window that governs
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: the specified category of expired sexual assault claims, notwithstanding any
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: provision of law which imposes a period of limitation to
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: the contrary, NYC PLR Section 214G, the CVA revival provision
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: ensures that its specified revival period will be operative despite
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: any contrary legal directives, C.E.G., NLRB v. Southwest General Incorporated,
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: 580 U.S. 288, 2017. A notwithstanding clause shows which of
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: two or more provisions prevails in the event of a conflict. Indeed,
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: New York's highest court has emphasized that a notwithstanding clause
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: is the verbal formulation frequently employed for legislative directives intended
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: to preempt any other potentially conflicting statute. Kuzmich v. 50,
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: Murray v. Street Acquisition LLC 34 NY 3D 8492 2019
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: As relevant here, the use of notwithstanding in a state
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: statute evinces the legislature's intent that any local law to
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: the country does not apply. Quoting People v. Mitchell 15
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: New York 3D 9397 2010 See also Finnegan v. Leonetti
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: Index No. 7001 2019 EAST At 10, NY Superior Court,
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: Bronx City, October 7, 2021. Noting that the CVA's text
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: is the clearest indicator of legislative intent and that the
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: statutory language dismisses contradictory statutory time limits. Plaintiff's alternative reading
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: is difficult to understand. She seems to interpret the phase
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: notwithstanding any provision of law, which imposes a period of
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: limitation to the contrary, NYCPLR Section 214G to mean that
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: the CVA revival provision expressly permits application of such contrary provisions.
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: But that is exactly the opposite of what notwithstanding means,
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: and it would be especially surprising, indeed self-defeating, for the
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: legislature to authorize the application of avowedly contrary statutory provisions.
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: If this court issued An order directing that a reply
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: brief may not exceed five pages, notwithstanding any page limitations
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: to the contrary, it would presumably not permit a litigant
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: to invoke the ten-page limit in the court's default rules.
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff offers no reason to read the notwithstanding clause in
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: the CVA revival provision to depart from, let alone directly contradict,
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: that well-accepted understanding. Plaintiff asserts that defendant has cited no
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: precedent adopting his understanding of the interaction between the CVA
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: revival provision and the NYC revival statute. Opposition at 2.
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: But plaintiff has not cited any precedent adopting her position either. Indeed,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: this case appears to be the first one to directly
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: present the question whether the CVA revival provision preempts the
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: NYC revival statute. Relatively few other claims have been filed
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: in this posture, likely because most other alleged victims in
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's position filed claims during the one of the multiple
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: prior windows for asserting such claims, including the recent two-year
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: window created by the CVA. All right, we're going to
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: with the topic, we're going to finish off with this document.
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.