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-MARla Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF JANE DOE NO. 101'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S N TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MODIFIED BY DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF 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(aX2). 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 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Plaster Street, Suite 800, Miami. FL 33130, Miami 305.358.2800 Fax 3(15.3582382 • Port Lauderdale 954.463.4346 www.podhureLe001 EFTA02738569