Royally Eschewed: Court Rejects Prince Andrew’s Motion to Dismiss Giuffre Lawsuit

Florida Southern District Court

Prince Andrew lost a major ruling in his litigation with Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts), who claims that the Duke of York sexually assaulted her as part of the sex trafficking crimes of the late Jeffrey Epstein. In his 46-page decision, Judge Lewis A Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York adopted an extremely narrow reading of the settlement and eschewed the defense arguments on threshold barriers to any lawsuit. Kaplan declared the “defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint or for a more definite statement is denied in all respects.”

We discussed the novel arguments put forward by Prince Andrew, including a sweeping waiver of future claims by Giuffre in a settlement with Epstein. As we discussed earlier, the long-secret 2009 settlement contains a provision that would seem to favor Prince Andrew in seeking dismissal. In exchange for $500,000, Giuffre agreed not only to release Epstein from any liability but any “other defendants” associated with him. Giuffre agreed to “remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said Second Parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant (‘Other Potential Defendants’) from all, and all manner of, action and actions” that she may bring, whether “state or federal.”

That is pretty sweeping and this ruling could create major appellate issues. Prince Andrew argued that he is clearly a “potential defendant” as defined by the agreement. Indeed, given his close relationship to Epstein, he was likely one of the figures in mind when Epstein sought the broad language.

Kaplan worked mightily to avoid that conclusion. He insisted that it is not clear that the 2009 settlement benefits Prince Andrew. He asked “what is a ‘potential defendant’ as distinguished from a ‘defendant’?”

It is hard to see how Prince Andrew is not a potential defendant under this sweeping argument.

The court, however, ruled that it is not clear that this agreement can be enforced by anyone other than Epstein, who is now dead. According to this logic, any limits on Giuffre died with him. Yet, that means that Giuffre accepted half a million dollars on the promise not to sue any potential defendants but will now be able to do precisely that in federal court.

I have no sympathy for Prince Andrew and the question of enforceability is a difficult one. However, this and other issues raised by his defense team are credible and likely to be raised on appeal.

 

59 thoughts on “Royally Eschewed: Court Rejects Prince Andrew’s Motion to Dismiss Giuffre Lawsuit”

  1. Prince Andrew is the subject of an allegation, a rather innocent looking photo, and guilty by association – although there will be a trial, the allegations have not yet been tested in court.

  2. Think of the children? Wait a few years, change jurisdictions, do it under a cloak of privacy (if you can get away with it), or change the religious (i.e. behavioral) consensus on the age of majority.

    1. Even worse is getting kicked out of the palace by your mother the Queen. But you have to respect her sense of right and wrong.

      Unlike that fine moral exemplar President Biden and his son Hunter with the grandchild who will not be acknowledged. Or their role model, that old horn dog Bill Clinton, getting some late night office action from a 22 year old intern. Hunter and Bill almost got away with it too, except they got tripped up by that annoying DNA testing.

  3. I think it’s hilarious that the men that engaged in pedophilia are getting away with it while the woman gets all the blame and is left hanging in the wind. Nice support she’s getting from the feminist bunch.

    1. Did you read Virginia Giuffre’s original complaint against Andrew? There is a graphic in it showing the origination and destination of the flights Virginia took on Epstein’s private jet, there were 30 of them and included trips across North America and Europe.

      If she was being forced to do something she didn’t want, then there seems to be a lot of times she allowed herself to be “forced”….

Leave a Reply to Liberty2nd Cancel reply