Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2022 09:14 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------ X
CHERI PIERSON, :
: Index No.: 952002/2022
Plaintiff, :
: Hon. Suzanne Adams
v. :
: Motion Seq. No. 001
LEON BLACK, ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, :
DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as the EXECUTOR :
FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN and :
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST; :
RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as the EXECUTOR :
FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN and :
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST; and THE :
1953 TRUST, :
:
Defendant. :
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
AFFIRMATION OF JEANNE M. CHRISTENSEN IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT BLACK’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
I, Jeanne M. Christensen, a partner at Wigdor LLP (“Wigdor”), represent Plaintiff
Cheri Pierson (“Ms. Pierson” or “Plaintiff”) in this action. As such, I am fully familiar
with the facts and issues in this matter, and I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury
pursuant to CPLR 2106, that the following is true and correct:
1. I submit this affirmation in support of Ms. Pierson’s and Wigdor’s cross-
motion pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 130.1.1 against Defendant Leon Black (“Black”) and
his counsel, Perry Guha LLP (“Perry Guha”) and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP for an award of costs and fees and sanctions, in connection with the frivolous motion
for sanctions filed by Black, as well as in support of Plaintiff’s memorandum of law in
opposition to Defendant’s motion.
1 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2022 09:14 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2022
Procedural History
2. Ms. Pierson commenced this action on November 28, 2022. Dkt. No. 1.
3. Prior to this action against Black, an action was filed against him by Guzel
Ganieva on June 1, 2021, entitled Ganieva v. Black, Index No. 155262/2021 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct.) (the “Ganieva Action”). The Hon. David J. Cohen is presiding over the Ganieva
Action. A true and correct copy of the original complaint in the Ganieva Action is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
4. On September 20, 2021, Ms. Ganieva filed a motion for leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), and contained therein were allegations about a Jane
Doe, which refer to Ms. Pierson. A true and correct copy of the Second Amended
Complaint in the Ganieva Action is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
5. After Black opposed the motion for leave and also filed a motion to strike
a substantial portion of the allegations in Ms. Ganieva’s operative complaint, the court
issued a decision and order (the “Decision”) on May 6, 2022. A true and correct copy of
Judge Cohen’s Decision and Order dated May 6, 2022 is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
6. In the Decision that denied Black’s motion to strike and granted Ms. Ganieva’s
motion for leave to file the SAC, the court held that Ms. Ganieva’s lawsuit was “not palpably
insufficient or devoid of merit.” Ex. C at 21. In the Decision, the court also rejected Black’s
claims that the allegations concerning “Jane Doe,” (Ms. Pierson) were meritless and
irrelevant to Ms. Ganieva’s claims, explaining that “this court finds that what happened to
Ms. Doe is directly relevant to plaintiff’s claims for defamation, defamation per se,
intentional infliction of emotional distress and the GVMA.” Id. at 22.
7. In the Decision, the court further acknowledged, “according to the new
allegations, defendant treated Ms. Doe in a manner similar to how he allegedly treated plaintiff
2
2 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2022 09:14 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2022
in that he sexually preyed on Ms. Doe, also a single mother of limited financial means, and
then believed that his money could buy her silence and nullify his behavior. In connection with
defendant’s claim that plaintiff extorted him, such information goes to the core of this dispute.”
Id. at 23.
8. On May 19, 2022, Ms. Ganieva filed a motion to compel Black to produce
relevant documents and information in the Ganieva Action. A true and correct copy of
Jeanne M. Christensen’s affirmation in support of this motion to compel is attached hereto
as Exhibit D.
9. On May 23, 2022, Black filed a notice of appeal concerning the Decision. At
the same time, he filed a motion to dismiss the SAC, and that fully briefed motion has not yet
been adjudicated.
10. On June 9, 2022, Ms. Ganieva opposed Black’s motion to dismiss the SAC. A
true and correct copy of Jeanne M. Christensen’s affirmation in opposition to Black’s
motion to dismiss is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
11. On October 28, 2021, Black filed a separate lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Federal Action”), and named
both Ms. Ganieva and Wigdor as defendants, alleging causes of action for defamation and
violations of the civil RICO laws under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d). See Black v. Ganieva,
No. 1:21 Civ. 08824 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). A true and correct copy of the original complaint
filed by Black in the Federal Action is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
12. After Wigdor filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
11, Black subsequently filed an Amended Complaint that removed the RICO claims as
against Wigdor, but kept them as to Ms. Ganieva, and other individuals.
3
3 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2022 09:14 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2022
13. Wigdor, Ms. Ganieva, and the other remaining defendants moved to dismiss
Black’s Amended Complaint.
14. On June 30, 2022, District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed Black’s
RICO claims, the sole basis for federal jurisdiction, with prejudice. A true and correct
copy of this June 30, 2022 Opinion and Order is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
15. The District Court noted that Black’s RICO claims were “glaringly
deficient in fundamental respects” and found it “futile to allow repleading.” Ex. E at *30,
n. 24. Judge Engelmayer declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Black’s state-
law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. Id.
16. Importantly, while Judge Engelmayer “narrowly” denied Wigdor’s Rule 11
motion, he noted that Black’s RICO claims against Wigdor “had threadbare factual support
and numerous pleading deficiencies.” A true and correct copy of this June 30, 2022
Opinion and Order is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
17. On October 31, 2022, in New York Supreme Court, Black filed another
retaliatory lawsuit against Ms. Ganieva, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and
against Wigdor for tortious interference of contract, forcing Wigdor to retain outside
counsel once again, as well as Ms. Ganieva. See Black v. Ganieva and Wigdor LLP, No.
654108/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). A true and correct copy of the original complaint filed by
Black in the New York State Supreme Court is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
18. On December 16, 2022, an exact copy of the motion to which this
Affirmation and the accompanying Memorandum of Law are related to was filed in the
Ganieva Action. A true and correct copy of the motion for sanctions filed by Black in the
Ganieva Action is attached hereto as Exhibit J.
4
4 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2022 09:14 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2022
19. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to
the best of my knowledge.
Dated: December 28, 2022
New York, New York
By: __________________________
Jeanne M. Christensen
5
5 of 5
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2022 09:14 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ X CHERI PIERSON, : : Index No.: 952002/2022 Plaintiff, : : Hon. Suzanne Adams v. : : Motion Seq. No. 001 LEON BLACK, ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, : DARREN K. INDYKE, in his capacity as the EXECUTOR : FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN and : ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST; : RICHARD D. KAHN, in his capacity as the EXECUTOR : FOR THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN and : ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST; and THE : 1953 TRUST, : : Defendant. : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X AFFIRMATION OF JEANNE M. CHRISTENSEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BLACK’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS I, Jeanne M. Christensen, a partner at Wigdor LLP (“Wigdor”), represent Plaintiff Cheri Pierson (“Ms. Pierson” or “Plaintiff”) in this action. As such, I am fully familiar with the facts and issues in this matter, and I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury pursuant to CPLR 2106, that the following is true and correct: 1. I submit this affirmation in support of Ms. Pierson’s and Wigdor’s cross- motion pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 130.1.1 against Defendant Leon Black (“Black”) and his counsel, Perry Guha LLP (“Perry Guha”) and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP for an award of costs and fees and sanctions, in connection with the frivolous motion for sanctions filed by Black, as well as in support of Plaintiff’s memorandum of law in opposition to Defendant’s motion. 1 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2022 09:14 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2022 Procedural History 2. Ms. Pierson commenced this action on November 28, 2022. Dkt. No. 1. 3. Prior to this action against Black, an action was filed against him by Guzel Ganieva on June 1, 2021, entitled Ganieva v. Black, Index No. 155262/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (the “Ganieva Action”). The Hon. David J. Cohen is presiding over the Ganieva Action. A true and correct copy of the original complaint in the Ganieva Action is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. On September 20, 2021, Ms. Ganieva filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), and contained therein were allegations about a Jane Doe, which refer to Ms. Pierson. A true and correct copy of the Second Amended Complaint in the Ganieva Action is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 5. After Black opposed the motion for leave and also filed a motion to strike a substantial portion of the allegations in Ms. Ganieva’s operative complaint, the court issued a decision and order (the “Decision”) on May 6, 2022. A true and correct copy of Judge Cohen’s Decision and Order dated May 6, 2022 is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. In the Decision that denied Black’s motion to strike and granted Ms. Ganieva’s motion for leave to file the SAC, the court held that Ms. Ganieva’s lawsuit was “not palpably insufficient or devoid of merit.” Ex. C at 21. In the Decision, the court also rejected Black’s claims that the allegations concerning “Jane Doe,” (Ms. Pierson) were meritless and irrelevant to Ms. Ganieva’s claims, explaining that “this court finds that what happened to Ms. Doe is directly relevant to plaintiff’s claims for defamation, defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress and the GVMA.” Id. at 22. 7. In the Decision, the court further acknowledged, “according to the new allegations, defendant treated Ms. Doe in a manner similar to how he allegedly treated plaintiff 2 2 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2022 09:14 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2022 in that he sexually preyed on Ms. Doe, also a single mother of limited financial means, and then believed that his money could buy her silence and nullify his behavior. In connection with defendant’s claim that plaintiff extorted him, such information goes to the core of this dispute.” Id. at 23. 8. On May 19, 2022, Ms. Ganieva filed a motion to compel Black to produce relevant documents and information in the Ganieva Action. A true and correct copy of Jeanne M. Christensen’s affirmation in support of this motion to compel is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 9. On May 23, 2022, Black filed a notice of appeal concerning the Decision. At the same time, he filed a motion to dismiss the SAC, and that fully briefed motion has not yet been adjudicated. 10. On June 9, 2022, Ms. Ganieva opposed Black’s motion to dismiss the SAC. A true and correct copy of Jeanne M. Christensen’s affirmation in opposition to Black’s motion to dismiss is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 11. On October 28, 2021, Black filed a separate lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Federal Action”), and named both Ms. Ganieva and Wigdor as defendants, alleging causes of action for defamation and violations of the civil RICO laws under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d). See Black v. Ganieva, No. 1:21 Civ. 08824 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). A true and correct copy of the original complaint filed by Black in the Federal Action is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 12. After Wigdor filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11, Black subsequently filed an Amended Complaint that removed the RICO claims as against Wigdor, but kept them as to Ms. Ganieva, and other individuals. 3 3 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2022 09:14 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2022 13. Wigdor, Ms. Ganieva, and the other remaining defendants moved to dismiss Black’s Amended Complaint. 14. On June 30, 2022, District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed Black’s RICO claims, the sole basis for federal jurisdiction, with prejudice. A true and correct copy of this June 30, 2022 Opinion and Order is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 15. The District Court noted that Black’s RICO claims were “glaringly deficient in fundamental respects” and found it “futile to allow repleading.” Ex. E at *30, n. 24. Judge Engelmayer declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Black’s state- law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. Id. 16. Importantly, while Judge Engelmayer “narrowly” denied Wigdor’s Rule 11 motion, he noted that Black’s RICO claims against Wigdor “had threadbare factual support and numerous pleading deficiencies.” A true and correct copy of this June 30, 2022 Opinion and Order is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 17. On October 31, 2022, in New York Supreme Court, Black filed another retaliatory lawsuit against Ms. Ganieva, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and against Wigdor for tortious interference of contract, forcing Wigdor to retain outside counsel once again, as well as Ms. Ganieva. See Black v. Ganieva and Wigdor LLP, No. 654108/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). A true and correct copy of the original complaint filed by Black in the New York State Supreme Court is attached hereto as Exhibit I. 18. On December 16, 2022, an exact copy of the motion to which this Affirmation and the accompanying Memorandum of Law are related to was filed in the Ganieva Action. A true and correct copy of the motion for sanctions filed by Black in the Ganieva Action is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 4 4 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/28/2022 09:14 PM INDEX NO. 952002/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2022 19. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated: December 28, 2022 New York, New York By: __________________________ Jeanne M. Christensen 5 5 of 5