USCOURTS-flsd-9_08-cv-80804-0
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Harvard University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
PROJECT MA
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
8
Uploaded by LieutenantWrenMaster1038
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
NO. 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE, a/k/a
JANE DOE NO. 1,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, HALEY ROBSON, and
SARAH KELLEN,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (DE 11), filed August
18, 2008. Defendants filed a response (DE 21), and Plaintiff subsequently replied (DE 22). The
motion is now fully briefed and is ripe for review. The Court has carefully reviewed all of the
briefs and the entire record and is otherwise advised in the premises.
Background
Plaintiff Jane Doe, a/k/a Jane Doe No. 1, filed a four-count complaint in the Circuit Court
of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, on June 25, 2008,
bringing actions for sexual assault against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), and civil
conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil remedy for violation of Florida
Statute Section 772.103 against all three Defendants (DE 1). The facts, as alleged in the
Complaint, are as follows: At all relevant times, Epstein was an adult male. (Am. Compl. ¶ 8). Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/08 12:46:37 Page 1
of 8
2
Epstein engaged in a plan, scheme and/or enterprise in which he gained access to primarily
economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls or coerced or
attempted to coerce them to engage in prostitution, and then gave them money. (Am. Compl. ¶
9). In or about 2005, Plaintiff, then 14 years old, became a victim of this scheme. (Am. Compl.
¶ 9). Defendants Sarah Kellen (“Kellen”) and Haley Robson (“Robson”) recruited girls
ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm Beach
mansion. (Am. Compl. ¶11). Under the plan, Robson was contacted shortly before or soon after
Epstein was at his Palm Beach residence. Epstein, Kellen, or someone on their behalf, directed
Robson to bring one or more underage girls to the residence. (Am. Compl. ¶11). Robson
generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from Loxahatchee and
surrounding areas. (Am. Compl. ¶ 11).
Upon arrival at Epstein’s mansion, Robson would introduce each victim to Kellen, who
gathered the girl’s personal information. (Am. Compl. ¶ 12). Defendant Kellen would then bring
the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table. (Am. Compl. ¶ 12). Kellen would then leave the girl alone in the room, whereupon Epstein would enter wearing only
a towel. (Am. Compl. ¶ 12). Epstein would then remove his towel, lay down naked on the
massage table, and direct the girl to remove her clothes. (Am. Compl. ¶ 12). Epstein would then
perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts, including masturbation, touching the girl’s
vagina with a vibrator, or digitally penetrating the girl’s vagina, and coerce or attempt to coerce
the girl to engage in either lewd acts or prostitution, or both. (Am. Compl. ¶ 12).
Consistent with the foregoing plan, Robson recruited Plaintiff to give Epstein a massage
for monetary compensation. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Robson brought Plaintiff to Epstein’s mansion
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/08 12:46:37 Page 2
of 8
3
in Palm Beach. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Plaintiff was introduced to Kellen, who led her up the stairs
to the room with the massage table. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Kellen set up the massage table, laid out
the massage oils, told Plaintiff that Epstein would be in shortly, and then left the room. (Am.
Compl. ¶ 13). Plaintiff was alone in the room when Epstein arrived. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Epstein
told her to remove her clothes and left the room. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Epstein returned wearing
only a towel. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Epstein removed his towel and laid down on his stomach on
the massage table. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Epstein again told Plaintiff to remove her clothes. (Am.
Compl. ¶ 13). In shock, fear and trepidation, Plaintiff complied, removing her clothes except for
her panties and bra. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Shortly after starting to rub Epstein’s back, Epstein told
Plaintiff to sit on his back. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Plaintiff, out of fear and trepidation, complied.
(Am. Compl. ¶ 13). After a period of time, Epstein got up from the table and went behind the
door. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). For several minutes Plaintiff heard loud noises and moans and
believes that Epstein was masturbating. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Thereafter, Epstein, naked, returned
to the massage table and laid face up on the table. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Epstein then told Plaintiff
to continue with the massage and told her to sit on top of him. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Out of fear
and trepidation she complied. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). As Plaintiff rubbed Epstein’s chest, Epstein
began to use a vibrator on Plaintiff’s vagina. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Thereafter Epstein began to
digitally stimulate and attempt to penetrate Plaintiff’s vagina. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). At this same
time, Epstein was masturbating. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Upon reaching orgasm, Epstein got up from
the massage table, told Plaintiff to write down her name and phone number, and then left the
room.(Am. Compl. ¶ 13). Plaintiff was then able to get dressed, leave the room and go back downstairs and into the
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/08 12:46:37 Page 3
of 8
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
kitchen. (Am. Compl. ¶ 14). Epstein, Robson, and Kellen were waiting for Plaintiff. (Am.
Compl. ¶ 14). Epstein paid Plaintiff $300. (Am. Compl. ¶ 14). Epstein paid Robson $200 for
bringing Plaintiff to him. (Am. Compl. ¶ 14). Robson took Plaintiff home. (Am. Compl. ¶ 14). As a result of this encounter, the 14-year-old Plaintiff experienced confusion, shame,
humiliation, and embarrassment, and the assault sent her life into a downward spiral. (Am.
Compl. ¶ 15).
Defendants filed a Notice of Removal with this Court on July 18, 2008. (DE 1). Defendants assert that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332: the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000; Defendant Epstein is a citizen of the U.S. Virgin Islands; and
Defendant Sarah Kellen is a citizen of New York. (Notice of Removal ¶ 2.) As Plaintiff is a
citizen of Florida, complete diversity exists and this Court’s jurisdiction is alleged to be proper. As for Haley Robson, Defendants claim that Robson was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity
jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal. ¶ 3). Plaintiffs have moved to remand the action, claiming that
Robson was not fraudulently joined to the action. As such, Plaintiff asserts that complete
diversity does not exist, and this Court does not have jurisdiction over this case.
Standard of Review
A defendant may remove any civil action brought in a state court over which a federal
court would also have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, the burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction under § 1441 rests with the party seeking removal. Carson v.
Dunham, 121 U.S. 421, 425 (1887); Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11
Cir. 1996). The
th
right of removal is strictly construed, as it is considered a federal infringement on a state’s power
to adjudicate disputes in its own courts. See
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100,
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/08 12:46:37 Page 4
of 8
5
108-09 (1941). Thus, when the Court’s jurisdiction over a case is doubtful, doubts are resolved
in favor of remand. See Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1539 (11
Cir. 1997). th
Discussion
Fraudulent Joinder
A defendant's statutory "right of removal cannot be defeated by a fraudulent joinder of a
resident defendant having no real connection with the controversy." Wilson v. Republic Iron &
Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921). Thus, courts have established the doctrine of fraudulent
joinder to allow the removal of a case to federal court despite the presence of a non-diverse or
forum-citizen defendant. The Eleventh Circuit has provided substantial guidance for the district
courts in situations where a party removes a case from state court, alleging fraudulent joinder of
the non-diverse parties: In a removal case alleging fraudulent joinder, the removing party has the
burden of proving that either: (1) there is no possibility the plaintiff can
establish a cause of action against the resident defendant; or (2) the plaintiff
has fraudulently pled jurisdictional facts to bring the resident defendant into
state court. The burden of the removing party is a “heavy one.”
To determine whether the case should be remanded, the district court must
evaluate the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and
must resolve any uncertainties about state substantive law in favor of the
plaintiff. Crowe, 113 F.3d at 1538. In this case, Defendants do not allege that Plaintiff fraudulently pled
jurisdictional facts; instead, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has no cause of action against
Robson. The Amended Complaint alleges three causes of action against Robson: civil conspiracy
(Count 2); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 3); and civil remedy for violation of
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/08 12:46:37 Page 5
of 8
6
Florida Statute Section 772.103 (Count 4). The Court, in considering the remand motion, must
not weigh the merits of a Plaintiff's claim beyond determining whether any of the alleged causes
of action is an arguable one under state law. See Crowe, 113 F.3d at 1538. “If there is even a
possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a cause of action against any one
of the resident defendants, the federal court must find that joinder was proper and remand the
case to state court.” Id., quoting Coker v. Amoco Oil Co., 709 F.2d 1433, 1440-41 (11th
Cir.1983). The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals set forth the elements of a civil conspiracy as
follows: “The elements of a civil conspiracy are: (a) a conspiracy between two or more parties,
(b) to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, (c) the doing of some overt act
in pursuance of the conspiracy, and (d) damage to plaintiff as a result of the acts performed
pursuant to the conspiracy.” Walters v. Blankenship, 931 So.2d 137, 140 (Fla. 5DCA 2006),
citing
Florida Fern Growers Ass'n, Inc. v. Concerned Citizens of Putnam County, 616 So.2d 562
(Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Here, Plaintiff has alleged each of the required elements in her Amended
Complaint as follows: (a) a conspiracy between the three Defendants, including Robson (Am.
Compl. ¶ 21); (b) to do an unlawful act, that is, to commit the tort of sexual assault of a minor
(Am. Compl. ¶ 21); (c) Robson committed an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy, that is,
Robson used false pretenses to lure Plaintiff to Epstein’s home so that Epstein could sexually
assault Plaintiff (Am. Compl. ¶ 22).; and (d) severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including
mental, psychological and emotional damages (Am. Compl. ¶ 23). “Additionally, an actionable conspiracy requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong.”
Raimi v. Furlong, 702 So.2d 1273, 1284 (3d DCA 1997); see, e.g., Walters, 931 So.2d at 141. Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/08 12:46:37 Page 6
of 8
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7
The gist of a civil action for conspiracy is not the conspiracy itself, but the civil
wrong which is done pursuant to the conspiracy and which results in damage to
the plaintiff ....
(citations omitted) Thus, a cause of action for civil conspiracy
exists ... only if “the basis for the conspiracy is an independent wrong or tort
which would constitute a cause of action if the wrong were done by one person.”
Rivers v. Dillards Dept. Store, Inc., 698 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 1 DCA 1997), quoting
Blatt v. Green,
Rose, Kahn & Piotrkowski, 456 So.2d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The alleged underlying wrong or
tort in this case is sexual assault of a 14-year-old minor. Sexual assault is considered tortious
conduct under Florida law. Malicki v. Doe, 814 So.2d 347, 358 (Fla. 2002); see also Doe v.
Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891, 917 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Florida law equates sexual battery
with an intentional tort.”). At the very least, Plaintiff’s Complaint states a cause of action for the
underlying tort of battery, as a 14-year-old child cannot consent to the alleged vaginal penetration
by Epstein. Fla. Stat. § 800.04.
Based on the foregoing, the Court cannot say with certainty that “no possibility” exists
that Plaintiff can establish a cause of action against the resident Robson in state court. See Crowe, 113 F.3d at 1538. As such, the Court concludes that Defendants have not met their
“heavy” burden of demonstrating that joinder of the claims against Robson was fraudulent,
justifying denial of the motion to remand. Id.
Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [DE 11] is GRANTED
.
2. This case shall be REMANDED
to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, case No. 50 2008 CA 006596, for lack of subject matter
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/08 12:46:37 Page 7
of 8
8
jurisdiction;
3. The Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Order to
the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida, case No. 50 2008 CA 006596;
4. All pending motions are hereby DENIED
, without prejudice, as moot; and
5. This case is closed
.
DONE AND ORDERED
in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
Florida, this 3
day of October, 2008.
rd
_________________________________
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to:
All counsel of record
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/08 12:46:37 Page 8
of 8