EPSTEIN
page 10 / 185 . OCR, unverified
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 14 of
-
'
'
By signing this Addendum, Epstein a99e11S and certifies that the abovo has been read and
explalnod 1o him. Epstein hereby atates that ho undcrstutds the clarifications 10 the N1;111•
Prosecution Agreement and agn:cs to comply with them.
By:
Dated: ___ _
Dated: ___ _
R. ALBXANDBR ACOSTA
UNJTBO STATBS ATTORNEY
A. MARIE VILLAFARA
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
JEFFREY EPS'IEIN
Dated: lQ:-tlg tfl-
GBRALD LBPCOURT, ESQ.
COUNSBL TO JBPfRBY BPSTBIN
~~~
AITORNEY FOR JBFPRBY BPSIBIN
------·-· ·----··----··----
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6-1 Filed 07/11/19 Page 15 of 15
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 15 of
•
~
•
Dac·D7-07
a,:551111
FrarFowl er-1111 ta hrn,t t
3D5THIZDI
T-IH
P. DOI/DU
F-1171
AJJlmadlla
I, .JdlyB. Eptfllinda ~
~
thcNOD-ProstOIIU'3n Apcmeiitaml Aiddr•hu to
~
ct.d October 30, 2007.
Dale'
==================== END OF Court Records__United States v. Epstein, No. 119-cr-00490 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)__006-01.txt ====================
==================== DOCUMENT: Court Records__United States v. Epstein, No. 119-cr-00490 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)__006-02.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: Court RecordsUnited States v. Epstein, No. 119-cr-00490 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)
METADATA_FILENAME: 006-02.pdf
----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 2
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6-2 Filed 07/11/19 Page 1 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2,
Petitioners,
vs.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
_______________________________/
UNITED STATES’ SEALED MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The United States hereby requests that this Court enter an order dismissing these
proceedings and the Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim’s Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
3771 (DE 1, the “Petition”), through which Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have
advanced claims pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.1 This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because
See, e.g., Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004)
(“Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final
judgment.”); United States v. Giraldo-Prado, 150 F.3d 1328, 1329 (11th Cir. 1998) (recognizing
that “a party may raise jurisdiction at any time during the pendency of the proceedings”); Harrell
& Sumner Contracting Co. v. Peabody Petersen Co., 546 F.2d 1227, 1229 (5th Cir. 1977)
(“[U]nder Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be
raised at any time by motion of a party or otherwise.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In the
present motion, the United States seeks dismissal of Petitioners’ claims based on both a legal and
factual challenge to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. This Court may properly consider
and weigh evidence beyond Petitioners’ allegations when evaluating such a challenge to the
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction:
Factual attacks [on a Court’s subject matter jurisdiction] . . . “challenge subject
matter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings.” In resolving a factual
attack, the district court “may consider extrinsic evidence such as testimony and
affidavits.” Since such a motion implicates the fundamental question of a trial
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6-2 Filed 07/11/19 Page 2 of 15
Petitioners lack Article III standing and because the claims raised by Petitioners in these
proceedings are not constitutionally ripe.
I.
The Claims Raised in the Petition Must Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction Because the Petitioners Lack Standing to Bring Those Claims.
These proceedings pursuant to the CVRA must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because Petitioners lack standing to pursue the remedies that they are seeking for
alleged CVRA violations. As the Supreme Court has explained,
to satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has
suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81
(2000); see also, e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir.