Latest / Beyond The Horizon / The DOJ And Their Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivors 4th Amended Complaint (Part 1) (11/9/26)

Transcript

The DOJ And Their Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivors 4th Amended Complaint (Part 1) (11/9/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to begin taking
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: a look at the United States government and their motion
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint filed by the Epstein survivors.
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: Case number 25-80880-Siv Leibowitz, Jango 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: United States of America, the Defendant. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: Fourth Amended Complaint. Defendant, United States of America, by and
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: through the undersigned assistant, U.S. Attorney, hereby moves to dismiss
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: this action pursuant to FEDAR Civs P8-12B1 and 12B6. Introduction.
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: Plaintiffs Laura Newman, Sandra Ward, and Jang Do's 1-32 bring
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: this action under the Fourth Amended Complaint against the United
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: States collectively alleging two counts of negligence under the federal
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: tort claims, U.S. Code 28 Section 1346B and 28 U.S.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: Code Section 2671. Plaintiffs contend that at various times across
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: the span of decades and at various locations around the world,
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused them. See Fourth Amended Complaint. After
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: several amendments, plaintiffs now bring this FAC, claiming negligence under
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: the undertaking doctrine, count one, and Zone of Risk Doctrine
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: Count 2, both new counts alleged for the first time
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: in the FAC for actions by both the Federal Bureau
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: of Investigation and Department of Justice. However, even after the
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: opportunity for yet another amendment, plaintiffs failed to meet the
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: requirement of Rule 8, failed to properly assert subject matter jurisdiction,
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: and failed to state a claim upon which relief can
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: be granted. As such, the court should dismiss the case
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: without further leave to amend as further opportunities to amend
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: would be futile. C. D. E. 97. If after four
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: bites at the apple, plaintiffs still fail to show this
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: court has jurisdiction over the FTCA claims, granting leave to
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: amend thereafter would indeed be futile. The argument. 1. Fourth
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: amended complaint fails under FedR Civ P. 8. A. 2.
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: The fourth amended complaint fails under FedR Civ P. 8. A. 2.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8A2, a pleading must
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: contain a short and plain statement of the claim, showing
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: that the pleader is entitled to relief. As the Supreme
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: Court held in Bell Atlantic Court v. Wombley 550 U.S. 554-2007,
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: the Pleading Standard Rule 8 announces that a complaint does
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: an unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmy accusation. Idea 555, citing
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: Papasan v. Elaine, a pleading that offers labels and conclusions
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: of a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: of action will not do. A. Plaintiffs have failed to
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: adequately allege equitable tolling. Plaintiffs each had two years from
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: the date of their respective injuries to file an administrative
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: claim with the appropriate federal agency. Here, plaintiffs' claims accrued
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: at various times between 1996 and 2017, yet plaintiffs delayed
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: the submission of their administrative claims until May 2023 and beyond. Therefore,
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs' claims are time-barred and must be dismissed. The failure
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: to timely present an administrative grievance to the appropriate federal
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: agency within two years is a jurisdictional bar to litigation
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: in federal court. Dismissal on a statute of limitations grounds
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: as appropriate. if it's apparent from the face of the
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: complaint that the claim is time-barred. Tello v. Dean Witter, Reynolds,
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: 11th Circuit, 2005. Plaintiffs assert that their FAC, that this
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: action has been timely pursuant to the doctrine of equitable tolling.
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: Plaintiffs further allege they only became aware of the defendant's negligence,
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: their injuries, and the cause of their injuries after the
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: case against J.P. Morgan Chase. Plaintiffs do not allege that
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: a specific date on which they became aware, nor how
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: it was that they became aware. Rather, they simply state
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: in conclusory fashion that a case filed in 2022 was
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: somehow the first time they became aware of the defendant's
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: alleged negligence, their alleged injuries, and the causes of their
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: alleged injuries. C.I.D. equitable tolling is appropriate when a movement
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: his control and unavoidable even with diligence. Plaintiffs fail to
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: allege any basis whatsoever to establish the due diligence required
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: for their assertion of equitable tolling. Plaintiffs allege in the
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: FAC that they were not made aware of their claims
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: until J.P. Morgan case filed in 2022. yet cite numerous
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: other publications detailing the government's alleged failures dating back to 2019. Plaintiffs,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: by their own allegations, were put on public notice of
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: their claims in 2019, and repeatedly thereafter, and yet have
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: no allegations of factual basis explaining how the plaintiffs remained,
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: in ignorance, unlike the rest of the world, necessary to
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: meet pleading requirements of Rule 8. In order to show
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: that equitable tolling is warranted, the burden is on the plaintiff.
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corporation, 11th Circuit, 1993 Notably, due
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: diligence on the part of the plaintiff is necessary to
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: prevail on the issue of equitable tolling. Justice v. U.S.,
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: 11th Circuit, 1993 To support equitable tolling under the discovery rule,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to show the time
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: of discovery and to support his diligence. In Delayed Discovery
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: Varner v. Domestic Court, S.D., Florida, February 7, 2017. Reasonable
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: diligence and extraordinary circumstance requirements are not blended factors. They
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: are separate elements, both of which must be met before
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: there can be equitable tolling. To warrant the application of
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: this extreme remedy, plaintiffs bear the heavy burden of proving 1.
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: that they pursued their rights diligently and 2. that some
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: extraordinary circumstance stood in their way and prevented timely filing.
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: Holland v. Florida, 649, 2010. Noting the difficult burden of
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: demonstrating entitlement to equitable tolling. The supporting allegations must be
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: specific and not conclusory. C. Cole v. Warden, 11th Circuit, 2014.
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff's conclusory assertion of equitable tolling is insufficient. The complaint
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: must allege facts sufficient to support the contention that equitable
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: tolling should apply. Swatala v. Rosenstiel, 288, Florida, 2017, where
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: there has been no showing of a basis for equitable
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: tolling in either complaint or a response to a motion
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: to dismiss, courts have granted motions to dismiss claims as
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: time barred. Here, plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: show the time of the discovery, nor any facts supporting
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: their diligence in delayed discovery. See generally, FAC. Rather, plaintiff
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: points to a single case against a bank related to
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: suspicious activity reports, but somehow ignore the litany of publications
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: cited in their own FAC, showing that the allegations they
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: are asserting were a public record long before the J.P.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: Morgan case. Plaintiffs cannot ignore the decades of cultural saturation
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: concerning the FBI's investigation and claim they simply did not know.
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: See McCullough v. U.S. 607 F. 3D 1355 11th Circuit 2010.
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: Plaintiffs may not bury their head in the sand once
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: they are put on notice that the government may have
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: caused an injury. Internal citations omitted. Plaintiffs have failed to
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: establish any basis for their conclusory assertion of equitable tolling
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: under Rule 8, and in fact their allegations establish that
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: they were on public notice of their claims no later
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: than 2019. As a result, plaintiffs' claims are time barred.
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: as their administrative claims were not presented until May of
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: 2023 and thereafter, exceeding the two-year statute of limitations. B.
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege a duty. Under Florida law,
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: the threshold inquiry in a negligence case is whether the
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: defendant owes a legal duty to the plaintiff. C. Marjory
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: Stoneman Douglas South Florida 2020 If a plaintiff fails to
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: establish a state law duty, the United States retains its
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: sovereign immunity and the suit cannot go forward. Smith v.
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: United States, 14, 11th Circuit, 2021 In Florida, there has
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: never been a common law duty to individual citizens for
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: the enforcement of police functions. Irving v. St. John, Florida,
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: August 9, 2022 noting that plaintiff had no substantive right
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: of any kind in a criminal investigation, much less one
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: created by the Constitution. In an attempt to circumvent the
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: established law holding there is no cause of action for
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: negligence in mishandled police investigations, plaintiffs assert the undertaking and
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: zone of risk doctrines. However, plaintiffs failed a properly alleged
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: duty under either doctrine. Notably, even if the FBI were
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: found to owe a duty to plaintiffs in the case,
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: the 11th Circuit has found that the FBI conducted a
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: two-year investigation of Epstein's conduct and developed substantial incriminating evidence,
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: resulting in both an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53-page
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: draft indictment. C. Wild 994, 11th Circuit, 2021. plainly, the
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: FBI met any alleged duty owed to the plaintiffs by
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: conducting an investigation that resulted in enough evidence to support
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53-page draft indictment. All right, folks,
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap this one up right here. And
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: in the next episode, we're going to pick up where
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: we left off. All the information that goes with this
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.