Friday, September 4, 2026

Epstein Victims Sued Wexner Now Voluntarily Dismissed in SDNY

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Aug 31 –    Jeffrey Epstein victims sued Leslie Wexner and 9 East 71st Street Corporation in New York State court, for gender-motivated violence, under the statute. 

 The defendants have tried to remove the case to Federal court, arguing there is no diversity jurisdiction. On April 29 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge John G. Koeltl held a conference. Inner City Press was there:

Lawyer for "9 East" Dan Ruzumna of Patterson Belknap: 9 East has been dissolved for more than a decade. It's been fully wound down. Mr. Merson said there was one issue to be briefed - but there are more reasons for dismissal.

 Judge Koeltl: It will make me time to decide the motion to remand. The parties have left it up on the air what goes into the motion to dismiss by 9 East 71st St. What's the timing? 9 East's 2d lawyer, Bennet Moskowitz of Troutman Pepper: We'd like 2 week to reply

 Judge Koeltl: I'm enter another order, including on 9 East's partial motion to dismiss by May 21, to June 25. Anything else?  Wexner and Wexner Foundation lawyer Marion Little of Zeiger TIgges: Sounds like the plaintiffs are not amending the complaint.

Wexner's lawyer: We question if this court can exercise personal jurisdiction over my Ohio-based client. Can you grant us leave to file our motion to dismiss? Judge Koeltl: No - I thought the parties have agreed to delay that until I decide the motion to remand.

[Complaint quotes Epstein email of June 14, 2014 that he "never ever did anything without informing les" and he'd "never give him up." ]

On August 31, mysteriously and with no other detail, this "NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s) and or their counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice against the defendant(s) All Defendants. Document filed by All Plaintiffs." Why?

More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here

The case is Lesniewski et al v. Wexner et al., 1:26-cv-2613 (Koeltl)  


More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here