#### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OT J. ividually, individually, and L.M., individually,
Defendants.
## MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
Defendant Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein"), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.140, hereby files this Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice, and as grounds therefor states as follows:
- 1. The Second Amended Complaint pleads a single count against Defendant Scott Rothstein for Conspiracy to Commit Abuse of Process.' That count is subject to dismissal with prejudice for the following independent reasons.
## A. Failure to Properly Plead Elements of Civil Conspiracy.
- 2. First, the Second Amended Complaint fails to properly plead the elements of a civil conspiracy, which are: (1) an agreement between two or more parties; (2) to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means; (3) doing of some overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy; and (4) damage to plaintiff as a result of the acts
1A copy of the Second Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
performed pursuant to the conspiracy. Laterza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 221 F. Supp. 3d 1347, 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (applying Florida law).
3. Plaintiff, however, does not plead with whom Rothstein entered into an agreement to commit the tort of "abuse of process." The closest Plaintiff comes is paragraph 36, wherein Plaintiff alleges:
Rothstein conspired and entered into an express or implied agreement to engage in the tort of abuse of process as part of a plan to defraud investors and further the Ponzi scheme. Rothstein knEK;vshould have known of efforts to make illegal, improper, an erted use of the civil process.
(Emphasis added).
4. Nowhere in paragraph 36 does a' t entify the alleged other party to this purported "agreement." ldentificati second party to the agreement is necessary because "an action for . . . conspiracy to commit any tort . . . requires that there has been a combination of two or more persons (or entities) seeking to accomplish an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful act by unlawful means. The actors must have a common purpose." Buckner v. Lower Fla. Keys Hosp. Dist., 403 So. 2d 1025, 1029 (Fl DCA 1981). If the other party to this supposed agreement was a corporate r example, the tort of civil conspiracy may not lie. See id. ("Since a corpora n st act through its officers, directors, or employees, it is well settled that a corporation cannot conspire with those persons unless the individual has a personal stake in the activity apart from that of the corporation."). And, even if that party was Defendant (who Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed from this litigation nearly 6 years ago), Plaintiff should still be required to clearly plead this fact to allow Rothstein to understand exactly what Plaintiff is charging him with.
1. Second, Plaintiff has not adequately pled damages necessary to sustain a civil conspiracy claim. Plaintiff's two damage categories are: (1) "the cost of installing an enhanced security system and retention of security personnel for the safety of Epstein and to protect his property;" and (2) "additional and unnecessary attorney fees and costs."
1. As to the first category of damages, Plaintiff-does not plead that he knew about the purported abuse of process at the time it occurred (and it is clear from discovery in this nearly decade old case, as well as from the allegations in the original 2009 Complaint, that Plaintiff did not learn about the Ponzi scheme until after its implosion in November 2009). Thus, any purported costs for security were not caused by Rothstein's actions, as Plaintiff could not have installed the security system until after the purported abuse of process ended and after Rothstein was already in custody.
1. As to the zsecond category of damages, attorney's fees incurred in connection with(PINfiffs defense of the sexual molestation claims being pursued by his many victiniC) not a compensable category of damages because all of the actions purportedly taken by are protected by Florida's litigation privilege. LatAm Investments, LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
# B. There is No Viable Underlying Tort.
8. The Second Amended Complaint is also subject to dismissal with prejudice because there is no valid underlying tort to the purported conspiracy claim against Rothstein. An actionable conspiracy requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong. Florida Fern Growers Assent Inc. v. Concerned Citizens of Putnam County 616 So. 2d 562, 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
1. As the Florida Supreme Court stated in Levin, Middlebrooks. Mabie,
Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994):
[A]bsolute immunity must be afforded to any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the act involves a defamatory statement or other tortious behavior such as the alleged misconduct at issue, so long as the act has somikialation to the proceeding.
10. Plaintiff was being sued by E.W., Jan d L.M. for numerous sexual assaults when they were minor children, an ;1st, victims were pursuing claims for both compensatory and punitive dama She alleged abusive litigation tactics by Defendant (who, again, m r m not have been the party to the purported conspiracy pled against Rothstein);" outlined in the Second Amended Complaint, clearly have at least "some relation" to the then-pending sexual assault claims and are therefore protected by Florida's litigation privilege. See id.
# C. Dismissal with Prejudice is Appropriate.
11. Plaintiff filed his action against Rothstein on December 7, 2009. The now operative pleading, the Second Amended Complaint, was filed on August 24, 2012, nearly six (6) years ago. Since filing the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has taken no action to move this case along. He has taken no discovery related to Rothstein, he has set no depositions related to Rothstein, and, in fact, it appears that Plaintiff did not even understand that the Second Amended Complaint was the operative pleading against Rothstein until raised the issue in a Motion to Sever filed last month.
01. Florida law supports the dismissal with prejudice of a dilatory claim such as Plaintiffs case against Rothstein. Specifically, in Tropicaire Enose Serv. Coro. v. Chrysler Airtemp Sales Corp. the Third District Court of Appeal held that a trial court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice where the plaintiff did not move the court to set their cause for final hearing until almost a year after defendants' answer had been filed, the time for taking testimony had expired, and the plaintiff had not taken any testimony nor shown any valid excuse or cause for not having taken testimony and had not sustained the burden of proof. 97 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957).
01. Here, Plaintiff has failed to take any action in his case against Rothstein for nearly 6 years and until recently had no idea what case he had even pled. Plaintiffs dilatory conduct shows a lack of respect for the judicial system, the Court's time, and the taxpayer funds being wasted in this nearly decade old litigation (against a defendant who, with his present sentence of 50 years" would remain in Federal prison for the rest of his life and who has no assets to satisfy any judgment). This delay is nearly 6 times as long as that found by the Third DCA in Tropicaire Eng'g Serv. Corp. to justify dismissal with prejudice, and therefore it is well within the Court's discretion to similarly dismiss Plaintiffs claim with prejudice. See id.
01. Moreover, dismissal with prejudice is warranted under the doctrine of laches because Plaintiff's 6 year delay in pursuing his purported claim against Rothstein
(and Plaintiffs admitted ignorance as to what complaint was actually pending) is substantially unreasonable and has resulted in undue prejudice to Rothstein. See Brumby v. Brumby, 647 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), cause dismissed, 651 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1995).
15. According, Defendant Rothstein requests that the Court dismiss Count II of the Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice.
4It WHEREFORE, Defendant Scott Rothstein respecffull req uests that the Court dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with Prejudi scmayyl award any such further relief as the Court deems just given the circumstan cric. )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and co I!Ip of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list 1\_, 2018.
r S. Nurik
MAR S. NURIK
Fla. Bar. No. 272817
E-Mail Address: marc@nuriklaw.com
Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik
1075 Broken Sound Parkway
Suite 102
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein
Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, et al\
15th Judicial Circuit, Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG\
Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice
**COUNSEL LIST**
Jack Scarola, Esq.\
Karen E. Terry, Esq.\
[jsx@searcylaw.com](mailto:jsx@searcylaw.com)\
[ket@searcylaw.com](mailto:ket@searcylaw.com)\
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.\
West Palm Beach, FL 33409\
Phone: (561) 686-6300\
*Counsel for* [REDACTED] *J.* [REDACTED]
Nichole J. Segal, Esq.\
[njs@FLAppellateLaw.com](mailto:njs@FLAppellateLaw.com); [kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com](mailto:kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com)\
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.\
444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite 350\
West Palm Beach, FL 33401\
Phone: (561)-721-0400\
*Counsel for* [REDACTED] *J.* [REDACTED]
Scott J. Link, Esq.\
Kara Rockenbach, Esq.\
Rachel Glasser, Esq.\
Link & Rockenbach, P.A.\
[Scott@linkrocklaw.com](mailto:Scott@linkrocklaw.com)\
[Kara@linkrocklaw.com](mailto:Kara@linkrocklaw.com)\
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard\
Suite 301\
West Palm Beach, FL 33401\
Phone: 561-727-3600\
Fax: 561-727-3601\
*Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein*
Jack A. Goldberger, Esq.\
[jgoldberger@agwpa.com](mailto:jgoldberger@agwpa.com); [smahoney@agwpa.com](mailto:smahoney@agwpa.com)\
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.\
250 Australian Avenue S, Suite 1400\
West Palm Beach, FL 33401\
Phone: (561)-659-8300\
Fax: (561)-835-8691\
*Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein*
## IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB-AG Judge David F.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and J. individually,
Defendants.
# SECOND AMENDED COMPICIN
The Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein, ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against the Defendants, Scott Roth1tein, ("Rothstein") and J. (" ') (collectively referred to as "Defendants") and alleges:
## INTRODUCTION
Tis litigation has at it iw firm that has been described by a United States Attorney as a criminal enterp e. founder, Scott Rothstein — partner, is currently serving a 50-year sent 'n federal prison for selling fake settlements to unsuspecting investors. Through the law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A ("RRA"), Rothstein and others ' in this criminal enterprise conducted a \$1.2 billion Ponzi scheme which was perpetrated with fake agreements, forged signatures and a fundamental corruption of the many legal protections that the legal system has in place. By claiming to be engaged in what was essentially legal extortion, Rothstein persuaded investors, that he could pressure defendants, including Epstein, into paying astronomical settlements and further defrauded investors by convincing them to purchase fake interests in assignments of fictitious structured settlements,
including those falsely claimed to have been reached by RRA forts' clients with claims against Epstein, to the detriment of the Plaintiff. Defendant made improper use of the judicial system and civil process by inter alga filing a complaint in federal court, although a state court complaint had been pending on behalf of the same plaintiff for almost a year, engaging in unreasonable and vexatious discovery and motion practice in certain underlying -actions against Epstein, making unfounded and highly charged sexual allegations in these underlying actions, and using improper investigatory tools, and causing damages to Epstein. The United States government has stated that Rothstein conspired with others to use RRA as a criminal enterprise to conduct a racketeering activity, including mail and feud, money laundering and consipiracy.
## GENERAL ALT.CATIONS
- 1. This is an action for damages\\ex ss of fifteen thousand dollars (\$15,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.
- 2. Epstein is domiciled in Palm Beach County, Florida.
- 3. Rothstein was at all relevant times a resident of Broward County, Florida, and the chairman, managing partner and chief executive officer of a law firm called Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, P.A. ("RRA"), whose main office was in Broward County. 14/ 1.1 is a resident of Broward County, Florida, and is licensed to practice law in the Florida. RRA. Beginning in April, 2009, and at all relevant times, was a partner in
payments to these clients of a discounted lump sum amount. 6. During 2009 Rothstein pursued a course of criminal conduct which included a scheme to defraud various investors into purchasing fake interests in assignments of fictitious structured settlements by showing them complaints filed in the= cases against Epstein, which settlements were falsely claimed to have been reached by RRA on be. of clients, including clients who had brought legal actions against the Plaintiff, in exc lc for immediate 0
#### The Ponzi Scheme
7. The purpose of the investments was to enrich stein, along with other members of RRA and others, to sustain the daily operati, and specifically, among other things, to raise capital to continue to fund in which were to be used in the prosecution of claims against the Plaintiff.
1. At or near the time that RothsTejp an others in his firm, many of whom have pled guilty to federal crimes, were pursuint Ponzi scheme, RRA was also engaged in litigation against Epstein in three civil case K'pie cases were Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80893 ("Jane Doe"), U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida; L.M. v. Epstein ("LM"), Case No. 50-2008 CA 02\$051XXXXMB-AB; and E. W. v. Epstein ("EW" or "Jane Doe #2"), 50- 2008 CA 028058XXXXMB-AB (collectively, the "Epstein Actions").
L'iT lead attorney for RRA handling the Epstein Actions was Defendant
Beginning in approximately the spring of 2009 through October, 2009, in support of the massive Ponzi scheme, Rothstein made various representations to potential investors regarding the Epstein Actions, as well as other alleged claims against Epstein, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) That RRA had settled one case for at least Thirty Million Dollars (\$30,000,000);
(2) That RRA had a team of investigators consisting of former law enforcement officers, including a former sheriff, who would use this sophisticated eavesdropping equipment and sift through a potential defendants garbage looking for damaging evidence that could be used to benefit RRA clients by enhancing the value of the clients' claims, and thereby engaging in tactics tantamount to legal extortion;
(3) That Rothstein had meetings with Epstein's alleged victims and their families regarding the structured settlements;
(4) That these victims would take a lesser settlement if paid promptly and that investors who funded these early payments would be paid their investment plus a return when Epstein paid the greater amounts to settle the claims;
(5) That in addition to the Epsteinas, many women were lined up to settle with Epstein with claims for hundreds of millions of dollars;
(6) That RRA attorneys would sue Epstein and disclose embarrassing information about Epstein, his family, friends and associates unless Epstein paid exorbitant settlements;
(7) That if the Ipotential investors did not make investments as promised on a strict timetable, RRA risked being fired and would lose the cases they had against Epstein to other lawyers; and
(8) That one .of the RRA clients felt that Rothstein had lied to her repeatedly about funding, and that she was one step away from going to another lawyer and going to the Florida Bar.
11. RRA employed a team of investigators on the Epstein Actions, including Michael Fisten ("Fistenlift,rmer Broward County Sheriff and convicted felon Ken Jenne ("Jenne").
en and Jenne were the primary investigators assigned to a, and routinely rted to and Rothstein regarding their investigations of Epstein.
13. brought the clients Jane Doe, EW, and LM to RRA when he joined the firm in April, 2009.
01. Rothstein approved incurring costs between \$110,000 to \$200,000 on the Epstein Actions, costs paid for as the proceeds of its massive fraud.
01. In October, 2009, Rothstein directed investigative team to bring case files into a conference room at RRA to be examined by potential investors. Then, Fisten and Jenne brought in the case files for the Epstein Actions, which numbered as many as nineteen (19) boxes.
01. On or about October 13, 2009, Kretschmar ("Kretsclunar"), usgisentative of one of the investor groups, was encouraged by Rothstein, in a meeting 't hi r partners of RRA, to look at the Epstein case files that Fisten and Jenne had sta.c the conference room. )
01. On or about October 13, 2009, Illinois attorney, Michael Legamaro, and his client, hedge fund operator Thane Ritchie, were also invited to.examine Epstein case files and a flight log displayed by Rothstein that allegedly contained the names of numerous celebrities who purportedly flew on Epstein aircraft. Mr. Legtunaro and his client reviewed both the flight log and the case files in the offices of RRA. 1-
01. The Epstein case files were displayed to potential investors in RRA's office to show them that the cases against-Epstein were legitimate and that the alleged victims actually existed, all for the purpose of obtaining the investments.
01. has given sworn deposition testimony that only a few attorneys at RRA were directly involved in the prosecution of the Epstein Actions, a privilege g prepared by and other documents, clearly reflect that more than eighteen (18) RRA lawyers were involved in prosecuting the Epstein Actions. Additionally, four RRA investigators and several legal assistants and paralegals were involved in the Epstein Actions.
01. On multiple occasions, and in contrast to sworn testimony, many RRA attorneys conferred and were involved with the prosecution of the Epstein Actions, including as described below:
a) On May 3, 2009, =I Adler ("Adler"), a name partner in RRA, who took part with, in the prosecution of the Epstein Actions, sent an email h staff and attorneys in RRA regarding depositions in the Epstein Actions;
b) On July 17, 2009, Jenne sent an email to Erin, c lout the Epstein Actions;
c) On July 18, 2009, sent an email to Adler, stating that "with the right moves we could force Epstein to settle for a lot of money";
d) On July 22, 2009, Edwards sent an email to the Attorneys at RRA requesting a litigation meeting. On July 23, 2009, Priscila Nascimento, one of the secretaries to Rothstein, was advised of the scheduled meeting;
c) On July 29, 2009, Cara, an attorney at RRA working on the Epstein cases, and a former agent)for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, sent an email to stating that "our best bet is to go after those close to Epstein";
t) In July, 2009, and co-counsel, Paul Cassell, exchanged emails about their lack of proof on a previously-filed motion, which claimed that Epstein was moving his assets to avoid paying any judgments that may be obtained by RRA clients against Epstein;
g) On August 13, 2009 an email was sent from Rothstein to Mark Nurik ("Nurik"), an attorney at RRA, regarding legal research on causes of action against Epstein. On that same day, Nurik sent an email to Rothstein regarding discussions about Epstein. Also on August 13, 2009, Adler sent an email to Rothstein regarding legal research on the causes of actions against Epstein. On August 14, 2009, sent an email to RRA attorneys called litigation strategy regarding Epstein;
h) On August 17, 2009, sent an email to Nurik regarding a legal opinion on the Epstein matter;
i) In the month of August, 2009, M, Jenne and Fisten, exchanged emails on approximately four occasions discussing investigative techni matters; Ati other Epstein
j) In the month of September, 2009, emails ere) exchanged between and William Berger ("Berger"), a partner at actions, regarding Litigation Strategy. participated in the Epstein
k) On September 11, 2009, Edwatds sent an email to Elizabeth Villar, a legal assistant to Rothstein, about Epstein's alleged asset transfers; and
1. On September 4 arichtgain on September 9, 2009, and Fisten exchanged emails on Epstein ittgatiepr gtrategy.
21) By August, 2 was aware that RRA' s offices were audio monitored and recorded,including ct sions on speakerphone.
01) Beginning in October, 2009, the level of communications by and between and others, including Rothstein, described below, increased dramatically, as Rothstein was running out of money, and was in search of new victims in order to continue to perpetuate the Ponzi scheme, and coincided with Rothstein's efforts to get the investments for the Epstein actions concluded. Those communications include:
a) From October 5, 2009 to October 18, 2009, emails were sent between and Berger, and Fisten, and and RRA attorneys regarding Epstein Litigation Strategy.
Evidence. A b) On October 19, 2009, sent an email to Nurik on JEE [Epstein]
c) During this same time frame Rothstein was exchan ails with the investors for the Epstein cases, telling them that if the investment w soon he would lose the client group to other lawyers.
d) During this same time frame, specifically on or around October 13, 2009, Kretschmar and Legamaro of the investor group were shown by Rothstein the actual case files of RRA in the Epstein Actions. The Epstein files were brought to the conference room by Fisten and Jenne.
e) During this same time frame, on or around October 21, 2011, A.J. Discala, a potential investor in the Epstein matters, sent an email to Rothstein about the private placement memoranda for the investment.
23. On October 22, 2009, the following events occurred:
sent an email to book a conference room for as many attorneys as possible 4 o a meeting on October 23, 2009 on the Epstein Actions. The email requested that Jeta," dler, Berger, Barry Mike Wheeler, Cam =, Rob Buschel, Fisten, Steve Jaffe, and Nurik attend;
b) Nurik emailed about the meeting;
c) sent an email to Pat M, another investigator on the Epstein case, regarding " new developments which require your expertise."
- lawyer if the investment is not made right away; Epstein;
- d) Adler sent an email to RRA attorneys on Epstein litigation strategy;
- e) ME sent an email to RRA attorneys on Bpstein litigation strategy;
- f) sent an email to RRA attorneys regarding causes of action against Epstein;
- g) Adler sent an email to Roth regarding causes of action against
- 24. On October 23, 2009, the following events occurred:
- a) Jenne sent an email to Rothstein advising him of an October 23, 2009 meeting;
- b) Rothstein emailed the investors that the Epstein client is going to another
- c) Rothstein sent an email to Adler regarding ca action against Epstein;
- h) Rothstein sent to,tegamaro, counsel for the Investors, an email regarding the causes of action against Epstein.
Based upon the foregoing, Rothstein received information from and Adler regarding causes of action against Epstein, and Rothstein then sent information regarding causes of action against Epstein to Legamaro, counsel for the Investors for the purpose of obtaining funds for the Ponzi scheme.
25. Given the interdependence of so many RRA lawyers, investigators, and other staff, and the wide communications that necessarily accompanied the involvement of so many people, knew, or should have known, that his Epstein case files were being shown and touted to investors and that he was assisting and aiding Rothstein to close the deal with the
investors, particularly where the magnitude of the potential settlements in the Epstein Actions was a key selling point.
26. In October, 2009, Rothstein convinced investors to put up money to realize a substantial return emanating from the fraudulent settlement of the Epstein cases.
01. In November, 2009, RRA collapsed and ultimately went into tcy and Rothstein voluntarily relinquished his law license and was disbarred by ( 3e orida Supreme Court.
01. Subsequently, Rothstein was arrested, arraigned in fe court, pled guilty and ultimately was sentenced to a 50-year prison sentence for fraud and racketeering, based on an alleged \$1.2 billion Ponzi scheme designed, among other things, to infuse funds into RRA, his own pockets, and those of his cohorts. The federal government called RRA a criminal enterprise.
## COUNT I: ABUSE OF PROCESS -
29. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 as if they were fully set forth here.
01. made illegal, improper and perverted use of the civil process as follows:
(a) On September 11, 2008, filed a state court action on behalf of client L.M. against seeking damages. On July 22, 2009, sent an email to the Attorneys at RRA requesting a litigation meeting.
(b) On July 24, 2009, M, on behalf of client L.M., filed a two hundred and thirty four (234) page, one hundred fifty-six (156) count complaint against Epstein in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida styled L.M. v Epstein, Case Number 09-CIV-81092. However, was never served. The case was filed with a misspelling of Epstein's
last name so as not to alert the defendant that the case had been filed. Each of the one hundred and fifty-six counts (156) is a separate cause of action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255, which provides a civil remedy authorizing damages of no less than \$150,000 per violation. Thus, sought total damages in excess of Twenty-Three Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars (\$23,400,000.00). knew or should have known that highly-charged sexual allegations in that complaint that Epstein forced L.M. to have "oral sex" with him were false. a client confirmed this fact in her deposition, but never amended the complaint.
(c) On or about October 13, 2009, Attorney Legamaro and his client, potential investor, Thane Ritchie, were shown Epstein case files at RRA for the purpose of obtaining Richie's investment in the Epstein actions. Epstein believes that the federal complaint in L.M. v. Epstein was shown to Legamaro and Ritchie at that time and that it was prepared by with highly-charged sexual allegations be shown to induce investment in the Epstein Actions and advance the Ponzi sc onstrated by the fact that never served Epstein with a summons and in that federal action, which action was filed long after filed and served a sta civil action on behalf of L.M.
31. On or abtettober 17, 2009, a, who had filed a state complaint against Epstein on behalf of E.W., emailed assistant to file a federal complaint against Epstein on behalf of E.W, like the one had filed in federal court on behalf of L.M.
01. also made illegal, improper and perverted use of the civil process in order to bolster the case to investors by utilizing it to conduct unreasonable and unnecessary "discovery," making unfounded allegations, and engaging in improper motion practice, including but not limited to:
(1) Deposing three airplane pilots employed by Epstein, and seeking a deposition of a fourth pilot; collectively, the three were deposed for over twelve hours but were not asked a single question relating to any of the claims of a clients. Instead they were asked many inflammatory questions that had no legitimate legal purpose;
(2) Noticing and subpoenaing for deposition the following people:
- (a) Donald Trump (a real estate investor and television personality);
- (b) Alan Dershowitz (a renowned Harvard Law Professor and one of Epstein's criminal defense lawyers);
- (c) David Copperfield (illusionist);
- (d) Individuals who had knowledge of Epstein's charitable, political or other don don%
(3) Taking the deposition k stein, brother of the Plaintiff, but not asking any questions about cli
targeted the foregoing in because they were close to Epstein, not because they had any connection to, or knowledgeltf the claims of clients. intent was to harass Epstein's friends, family and acquaintances;
(4) Asking outrageous questions of the Plaintiff in depositions which had no legitimate bearing on the cases or the issues to be tried, including questions regarding the size of his genitalia, whether witnesses would leave their children alone with the Plaintiff;
(5) Conducting irrelevant and meritless discovery by issuing a subpoena to obtain records from an alleged sex therapist, Dr. Leonard Baird in Massachusetts, when issues relating to Epstein's mental and emotional states were not at issue and when Dr. Baird had never even treated the Plaintiff;
(6) Directing and filing of Notices for the following health care professionals to produce medical records of Epstein, when Epstein's mental and emotional state was not an issue in the case:
- (a) Charles I. Galecki, M.D.;
- (b) Bruce W. Markowitz, M.D.; and
- (c) Steven R. Alexander, Ph.D.;
(7) Directing and filing Notices to the following banks of Colonial Bank and Palm Beach National Bank, to produce all financial records of Epstin, allegedly for the purpose of obtaining records of payments by Epstein to the\`alleged victims, knowing full well that the alleged victims testified to being paid in cash;
(8) Directing and filing of Notices to obtain all records of Epstein's prescriptions and all other health related documents at two local pharmacies, when no issues of Epstein's health had been raised in the rd. Actions;
(9) filed motions in the Epstein Actions attempting to plead a cause of action for RICO when there was no good faith basis for doing so; and
(10) filed motions to freeze assets of Epstein without any evidence that Epstein was attempting to sequester or transfer assets and prior to obtaining a judgment against Epstein. Ultimately the federal district court found the " motion was entirely devoid of evidence of Defendant's [Epstein] alleged transfers".
33. had ulterior motives for making these improper uses of civil process which included, among others:
- (1) maintaining a Ponzi scheme;
- (2) obtaining funds for the continued investigation and prosecution of the Epstein Actions; obtaining operating revenue so that RRA could continue to operate.
- (3)
34. As a result of the above, the Plaintiff has suffered damages by incurring additional and unnecessary attorney's fees and costs to defend these abuses of process.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein, demands a trial by jury, a judgment against Defendant J. for compensatory damages, interest, costs of this action, and any other relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
## COUNT II: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ABU £ OF PROCESS - ROTHSTEIN
35. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each Zeve allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 28, and 30 through 32, as if they were fully set forth herein.
01. Rothstein conspired and entered into an express or implied agreement to engage in the tort of abuse of process as pan of a plan to defraud investors and further the Ponzi scheme. Rothstein knew or should have known of efforts to make illegal, improper, and perverted use of the civil process.
01. 7 @ctions described in paragraphs 10 through 24 and 30 through 32 constitute overt acts ce of the conspiracy.
As a member of the conspiracy, Rothstein is liable for the acts described herein.
As a result of the conspiracy, Epstein has been damaged by incurring additional and unnecessary attorney's fees and costs and the cost of installing an enhanced security system and retention of security personnel for the safety of Epstein and to protect his property.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein, demands a trial by jury, a judgment against the Defendant, Scott Rothstein, for compensatory damages, costs, interest and any and other relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing y furnished via Email and U.S. Mail, this 22nd day of August, 2011:
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. P.O. Drawer 3626 Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A CO Jack Scarola, Esq. West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. iS 4)C) 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012
Marc S. Nurik, Esq. CLIS" Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Weinberg, Esq. G. Weinberg, P. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1 o.olp ivir Suffolk, 0211S,
Respectfully submitted,
ail2lai")l qr-35-Wit Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Fla. Bar No. 235954
BURNETT, P.A.
901 Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Bcach, Florida 33401 Telephone: (561) 802-9044 Facsimile: (561) 802-9t
WA807431AMECOM85-Second Amended Complaint - 8-17-11-11A.doex