Giuffre v. Andrew
| Decision Date | 11 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-cv-6702 (LAK) |
| Citation | 579 F.Supp.3d 429 |
| Parties | Virginia L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. Prince ANDREW, Duke of York, in his personal capacity, also known as Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Andrew Villacastin, Erika Nyborg-Burch, Sabina Mariella, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Andrew B. Brettler, Melissa Y. Lerner, Lavely & Singer P.C., Attorneys for Defendant.
Facts...––––
The Epstein Sex Trafficking Scheme...––––
Defendant's Relationship with Epstein and Maxwell...––––
Epstein Recruits Plaintiff...––––
Defendant's Alleged Sexual Abuse...––––
The Florida State Prosecution and the Federal Non-Prosecution Agreement...––––
Ms. Giuffre's Florida Suit Against Epstein...––––
The Federal Criminal Case Against Epstein...––––
The 2009 Agreement...––––
Discussion...––––
IV. Defendant Is Not Entitled to a More Definite Statement. He Will Get the Detail He Seeks During Discovery...––––
Conclusion...––––
Plaintiff Virginia Roberts Giuffre brings this action against defendant Prince Andrew. Duke of York, for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In short, she alleges that the late Jeffrey Epstein and others trafficked her to Prince Andrew who took advantage of the situation by sexually abusing her when she was under the age of eighteen.
Defendant denies Ms. Giuffre's allegations and attacks her. credibility and motives. He asserts that she was complicit in Epstein's unlawful activities. But this is a motion to dismiss Ms. Giuffre's complaint as legally insufficient – not to determine the truth or falsity of charges in her complaint. And defendant relies mainly, although not exclusively, on a 2009 agreement between Ms. Giuffre and Epstein that settled a different lawsuit, between Giuffre and Epstein, that defendant now argues released him from any liability to Ms. Giuffre.
The fact that defendant has brought the matter before the Court on a motion to dismiss the complaint as legally insufficient is of central importance. As is well known to lawyers but perhaps not known to the lay public, the defendant – by making this motion – placed upon the Court the unyielding duty to assume – for the purposes of this motion only – the truth of all of plaintiff's allegations and to draw in plaintiff's favor all inferences that reasonably may be drawn from those allegations.1 In consequence, the law prohibits the Court from considering at this stage of the proceedings defendant's efforts to cast doubt on the truth of Ms. Giuffre's allegations, even though his efforts would be permissible at a trial. In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the Court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms. Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant. As will appear more fully below, the Court's job at this juncture is simply to determine whether there are two or more reasonable interpretations of that document. If there are, the determination of the "right" or controlling interpretation must await further proceedings.
Except as otherwise noted, the facts are drawn from Ms. Giuffre's complaint. It bears repeating that its allegations are deemed true for purposes of this motion, whatever a trier of fact ultimately might determine at a trial.
Plaintiff's allegations arise principally from a sex trafficking scheme orchestrated by the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which by now has been publicized widely. According to Ms. Giuffre's. complaint, Epstein "sexually abused more than 30 minor girls ... in the United States and overseas" from between about 1999 and 2007.2 In concert with paid employees and others – notably Ghislaine Maxwell, who recently was convicted in this district of sex trafficking in connection with the Epstein events3 –Epstein and others lured vulnerable young girls into a scheme of abuse for Epstein's own sexual gratification and for that of some of his powerful and wealthy friends.4 Epstein relied on Maxwell and others to identify and target vulnerable young girls in numerous settings, including "schools, spas, trailer parks, and the street."5 Epstein's "recruiters" lured these girls into his orbit with the promise of what appeared to be legitimate masseuse positions. Once manipulated into returning to one of Epstein's residences, however, the girls were groomed for abuse by Epstein and others through displays of wealth, power, and sexual imagery.6
Once initial sexual abuse had occurred, Epstein and Maxwell further manipulated the victims with a combination of promises, threats, and surveillance.7 At its height, Epstein's sexual abuse scheme, managed principally by Maxwell, was transcontinental. Using his private jet, Epstein trafficked dozens of minors for sexual abuse at his New York City mansion, his New Mexico ranch, his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, his Palm Beach, Florida, estate, and elsewhere. In 2008, he pleaded guilty in Florida to procuring a minor for prostitution.8
Again according to Ms. Giuffre's complaint, the defendant first met Epstein in 1999 through the former's "close friend," Ghislaine Maxwell.9 Over the next several years, the defendant traveled with Epstein and Maxwell on Epstein's private plane and was a guest at Epstein's numerous homes, including the private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Little St. James, and properties in Palm Beach and New York City. Epstein and Maxwell were guests at the defendant's fortieth birthday party in 2000 as well as at a birthday party that the defendant threw for Maxwell in Sandringham, United Kingdom, in the same year.
In 2006, one month after Florida state prosecutors charged Epstein with procuring a minor for prostitution, the defendant invited Epstein to the eighteenth birthday party of one of defendant's daughters. As recently as 2010, and therefore after Epstein had done jail time in connection with the 2006 Florida charges and registered as a sex offender, the defendant was photographed with Epstein and stayed at Epstein's New York City mansion.10
Ms. Giuffre's complaint continues:
Maxwell recruited Ms. Giuffre into Epstein's sex trafficking activities in 2000, when Ms. Giuffre was sixteen years old and employed at the Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach.11 Like other minor girls whom Epstein and Maxwell targeted, plaintiff initially was recruited to "provide massages, and thereafter to engage in a variety of sexual acts, for Epstein."12 From 2000 through 2002, plaintiff traveled frequently with Epstein, both within the United States and internationally, on his private plane. In addition to being "on call for Epstein for sexual purposes," plaintiff on other occasions was "lent out to other powerful men,"13 including the defendant.
The complaint alleges, and the Court for present purposes is obliged to accept, that the defendant sexually abused Ms. Giuffre when she was under the age of eighteen years old. On one occasion, defendant allegedly forced plaintiff to have sex with him against her will at Maxwell's home in London. Ms. Giuffre's complaint includes a reproduction of a now widely published photograph of Ms. Giuffre, Prince Andrew, and Maxwell at Maxwell's home, which plaintiff says was taken prior to that event.14 On another occasion, defendant allegedly abused Ms. Giuffre during a visit to Epstein's private island. Little St. James.
Ms. Giuffre alleges also that defendant abused her at Epstein's mansion on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, which lies within this judicial district During that particular encounter, Maxwell forced "[p]laintiff, a child, and another victim to sit on Prince Andrew's lap as Prince Andrew touched her."15 During this visit to New York, according to the complaint, the defendant forced Ms. Giuffre to engage in sex acts against her will and was aware both of her age and that she was a coerced sex-trafficking victim.16
In each of these encounters, plaintiff alleges, Epstein, Maxwell, and the defendant compelled her to engage in sexual acts by express or implied threat. In consequence, plaintiff feared death or physical injury to herself or another, among other repercussions, if she disobeyed.17
Ms. Giuffre asserts that the defendant's actions caused and continue to cause her significant emotional and psychological distress and harm.
At this point, it is helpful and appropriate to refer to facts not alleged in the complaint in this case but of which the Court takes judicial notice.18
In July 2006, a Florida state grand jury indicted Epstein in a state court on a single count of felony solicitation of prostitution (the "Florida State Indictment").19 As will appear, that charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft
... ... question of law that can be resolved on a motion to dismiss ... and should not be deferred. See Giuffre v. Andrew , ... 579 F.Supp.3d 429, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (considering a similar ... settlement agreement on a motion to dismiss) ... ...
-
Doe v. Educ. Inst. Oholei Torah
... ... 1227; see also Carroll v. Trump, No. 22-CV-10016, ... 2023 WL 185507, at *9 n.40 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2023); ... Giuffre v. Andrew, 579 F.Supp.3d 429, 453 (S.D.N.Y ... Farrell v. U.S. Olympic & Paralympic ... Comm., 567 F.Supp.3d 378, 391 (N.D.N.Y. 2021); PC-41 ... ...
-
Stone v. Kubik
... ... penetration and oral sex, was “wrongful under all the ... circumstances.” Giuffre v. Andrew , 579 ... F.Supp.3d 429, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) ... For the ... reasons stated above, Stone #2 is ... ...
-
Doe v. Niagara Falls City Sch. Dist.
...for periods of two years or longer from their inception, for an indefinite time, or on an age-based approach (see Giuffre v. Andrew , 579 F.Supp.3d 429, 454-455 [S.D. N.Y. 2022] ). Accordingly, we conclude that the CVA comports with the requirements of the New York Due Process Clause, and w......