Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II ) CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. and Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, JANE DOE II, through counsel, opposes Defendant's RICHARD EPSTEIN's Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's argument for a dismissal is premised on the following: 1) Plaintiff is not permitted to file a claim under Florida law in a State of Florida court and then file a federal claim in a federal court; 2) the remedies amendment to 18 U.S.C.§2255 are not retroactive based on the dates Defendant EPSTEIN is alleged to have violated the statute; 3) damages under §2255 cannot be obtained on a per incident basis, but must be lumped together into a single recovery despite multiple violations occurring in temporally distinct time frames, and therefore being different incidents; 4) Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action under §2255 because she has failed to "allege facts constituting a predicate :As discussed at the hearing this morning before the Court, Plaintiff in this case is withdrawing the contention raised in the original memorandum, that Defendant EPSTEIN may not contest this Court's jurisdiction based on the Non Prosecution Agreement ("NPA"). Although the State Court action is not a part of this Complaint, and is not alleged in the four (4) corners of it, it is a fact that cannot be contested since Plaintiff has filed a State Court action. EFTA02750575