Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 101, CASE NO.: 09-CV-80591-MARRAJJOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 101'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MODIFIED BY DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAILDE ARGUMENTS I THROUGH VII OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby responds to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [D.E. 29] ("Motion"), as modified by Defendant's Notice of Withdrawal [D.E. 53] ("Notice of Withdrawal") of Arguments I Through VII of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and, as grounds, states as follows: Pleading Standard & Summary of Argument It is well settled in the context of a civil action that a valid complaint requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Defendant improperly attempts to heighten this standard through his characterization of this action as one that is essentially criminal and punitive in nature. Such a characterization is inappropriate, as this is a civil action that seeks only compensatory damages for the violation of certain of the predicate offenses of Section 2255 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code as set forth in the Podhorst Orsecic, P.A. 25 West Flagkr Steel, Suite 800. Mamie FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 305358.2382 • Fort Lauderdale 954463.4346 www.podhurst.crea EFTA00725633