wl | MAR 1 4 2011 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLAND DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN err || JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., } Plaintiffs, v. ; NO. ST-10-CV-443 | FANCELLI PANELING, INC., | Defendant. (CARROLL, J.) |__—— ur) | DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT | WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES COMES NOW Defendant, FANCELLI PANELING, INC. (“Fancelli”), by and | through its undersigned counsel, to provide its Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to | Dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed herein, pursuant to Super. Ct. Rules 7, 27, 128, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, 12(b), 19, , 48 U.S.C. §1561 and the Constitutional considerations embodied | therein. In support of its Reply, Defendant states the following facts and circumstances: EFTA00310004

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

DANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS Fi " DEFENDANT HAS CONTINUING CHALLENGES TO THE JURISDICTIONAL || DEFICIENCIES ON THE FACE OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT | Defendant moves to dismiss, inter alia, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) & (2). Itis | respectfully submitted that it is Plaintiffs’ obligation to state in the body of their (First Amended) Complaint the statutory basis they choose to designate for jurisdiction in all respects. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: | (1) A short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support. (Emphasis | added). | Although Defendant may be able to cull some theory adverse to its interests from — selected allegations of fact from portions of Plaintiffs’ pleading, the First Amended Complaint does not provide any reference to the statutory underpinnings for the subject matter jurisdiction of the Superior Court, 4 V..C.§ 76, nor should it be Defendant’s responsibility to select Plaintiffs’ best weapon in this regard for any response. Subject matter jurisdiction was not affirmatively plead in the First Amended Complaint. It is unequivocally Plaintiffs’ responsibility to state the statutory basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and Defendant can admit, or deny the specifics of same thereafter. Defendant chose to move to dismiss for, inter alia, that reason. Although Defendant may also be able to cull some theory adverse to its interests from juxtaposing selected allegations of fact from portions of Plaintiffs’ pleading, the First Amended Complaint does not provide any reference to the statutory underpinnings for this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction over this non-resident Defendant and it cannot be as desi gnated for residents EFTA00310005

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

DANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS v. FG i ing, In of the Virgin Islands with an enduring relationship. See 5 VIC. § 4902. Plaintiffs readily admit the fact that Defendant is not subject to this Court’s jurisdiction as a residence within, or by having an enduring relationship with the U.S. Virgin Islands. First Amended Complaint, q 3, p. C Nor should it be Defendant’s responsibility to select Plaintiffs’ best weapon in this regard for l any response. It is unequivocally Plaintiffs’ responsibility to state the statutory basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over this non-resident Defendant and Defendant can thereafter admit, or deny | the specifics of same. Personal jurisdiction alleged through some subsection of the long-arm | statute, 5 V.ILC. § 4903, over this non-resident Defendant was not affirmatively plead in the First Amended Complaint-it is argued in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, but it was never plead. Defendant similarly chose to move to dismiss for, infer alia, that reason. Should the Court find jurisdiction in these respects and, given the two forums available | through the Superior Court, Defendant would otherwise admit, with a full reservation of rights, that jurisdiction as to venue in St. Thomas & St. John would be preferred over venue in St. Croix. I. THE SUMMONS AND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED UPON FANCELLI PANELING, INC. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4), insufficient process, and Plaintiffs’ Opposition claims to satisfy that contention. Plaintiffs’ argument and annexed affidavits from process servers, however, are self- EFTA00310006

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

AANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS ye celli Paneli: defeating and instead serve to show that Fancelli Paneling, Inc., acknowledged by Plaintiffs to be a New York corporation, FAC, para. was not properly served under New York law. Clearly, Plaintiff has confused the sections of New York law setting forth the requirements for service upon a corporation and service upon an individual. According to the affidavit of attempted service submitted by Plaintiffs,their process server attempted service upon Defendant at its offices, 24 East 64" Street, New York, New York on August 5 and August 10, 2010, but the process server was told by “an individual” that “they | did not have authority to accept service of legal documents.” The process server left each time without leaving any documents. According to the affidavit of service submitted by Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff's process server then purported to serve Defendant at its offices, 24 East 64" Street, New York, NY on November 29, 2010, by “delivering a true copy of [the Summons and First Amended Complaint] on Christian Barthod, CO-WORKER a person of suitable age and discretion.” (emphasis supplied). FAC, Exhibit 1. Plaintiff, in its argument, goes to great lengths to convince this Court that Christian Barthod “acted as the President’s agent and liaison.” This is irrelevant to the issue of proper service on a corporation under New York law. Plaintiff itself states that it purported to serve defendant under NY law, CPLR 311(a)(1). That statute is quite clear: “Personal service upon a corporation . . . shall be made by delivering the summons as follows: 1. upon any domestic or foreign corporation, to an officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or any other agent EFTA00310007

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

ANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS etal. v. in, authorized by appointment or by law to receive service N.Y. CPLR §311(a)(1). Def. Exhibit A. There is no allegation whatsoever that Christian Barthod is an “officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier,” or that he was authorized by | appointment or law to receive service. There is only a sworn statement by Plaintiff's first process server that he was told that the person he tried to serve was not authorized to accept service. According to Plaintiff's own process server, he served a “co-worker” of Defendant's President. In addition, that “co-worker” had already informed the earlier process server that stated he was not authorized to accept service. The business card procured by the process server discloses no title for Mr. Barthod, which further supports the affidavit describing Mr. Barthod as | a “co-worker.” The description Plaintiff's counsel sets forth for Mr. Barthod purports to qualify him as a person of suitable age and discretion.” Plaintiff, however, has confused the New York statute setting forth the requirements for service upon individual and service upon a corporation. N.Y. CPLR § 308.2 permits personal service upon a “natural person...by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business. ..and... by mailing the summons by The affidavit of service of Plaintiff's process server states that he delivered a copy of the Summons and First Amended complaint to “Christian Barthod, co-worker, a person of suitable first class mail to the person to be served at his or her actual place of business...” | age and discretion.” Although Defendant does not concede the truth of the statements of the | EFTA00310008

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

ANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS et celli Paneli: process server, even assuming their truth, service was patently insufficient under New York law. As noted in the Affidavit of Mr. Christian Barthod, Def. Exhibit B, he is solely an employee and not otherwise authorized to accept service on behalf of Defendant corporation. | Il. THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE PROPER JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT Defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(6)(2), lack of personal | jurisdiction over it. In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant asserted its insufficient contacts with | the Virgin Islands for Plaintiffs to invoke this Court’s long-arm jurisdiction over this New York corporation, but also in a manner inconsistent with the due process clauses of the Fifth and | Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America through 48 U.S.C. §156]1 (the Revised Organic Act of 1954, as amended). | | When a defendant raises the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, “the burden falls upon the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient facts to establish that jurisdiction is proper.” Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nar. Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir. 1992); Carteret Sav. Bank, FA. v. Shushan, 954 F.2d 141, 142 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1992). “The resolution of a | motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is dependent on factual issues outside the pleadings. The plaintiff, as the party asserting personal jurisdiction, has the burden of | establishing it.” Evans v. General Gases of V.I., Inc., 1998 WL 912544 *1, *2 (Terr. Ct. V.I. Nov. 30, 1998). | A. LONG-ARM JURISDICTION It must be conceded at the outset that Plaintiffs’ failed to reference the V.I. long-arm EFTA00310009

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

| | DEF: ANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS et . : Page | statute within its First Amended Complaint. Nevertheless, this statute is lustily utilized in | opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on point, to the extend that 5 V.ILC. § 4903(a)(1) & (2) are now Plaintiffs’ exclusive reasons for personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs now support those \| i recent contentions on the following fact pattern: i Two New York companies contract in New York for the fabrication of cabinetry in | Europe that will be shipped to St. Thomas (by a third party) and installed (by another third party) | | in a residence to be constructed on Little St. James Island. H Defendant comes to Little St. James to see the cabinetry during installation and returns || afier disputes arise for purposes of settlement. Defendant respectfully submits that it would be unseemly to consider trips into this jurisdiction | for the purposes of resolving disputes. Fed. R. Evid. 407-408. But it is also beyond muster that | these activities fail due process protections as well. | B. DUE PROCESS If the Court finds satisfaction under the long-arm statute, it must then collapse the | question into a single inquiry: does jurisdiction violate the due process clause of the (Organic Act/Constitution)? “The (c)onstitutional due process requirements serve to shield persons from the judgment of a forum with which they have established no substantial ties or relationship.” | Motley v. Maxim Crane Works Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 5158090 *1, *2 (D.V.I. Dec. 9, | 2008)(citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Deutz AG, 270 F.3d 144, 150 (3d Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the | exercise of personal jurisdiction depends on the relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Id. The analysis of whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is permitted by the due EFTA00310010

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

DANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS ve Fi i in process clause depends upon whether the court seeks to exercise general or specific jurisdiction. Id. General jurisdiction occurs when a non-resident defendant’s contacts with the forum state are “continuous and substantial.” Id. It appears conceded that Plaintiffs herein are not making that allegation. If the Court had general jurisdiction over a defendant, then the defendant may be called into court on any type of action regardless of whether the action arises from the Defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Conversely, specific jurisdiction exists when the cause of action “arises from or related to conduct purposely directed at the forum state. Id. Defendant maintains that this Court lacks specific jurisdiction over it as well, because Fancelli does not have sufficient minimum contacts with the Virgin Islands to support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with due process. See Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Absent general jurisdiction, the due process clause permits jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only where that defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985). These contacts must be of the nature such that the individual non-resident defendant “should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Id. (Emphasis added). It is respectfully submitted that shipping its work to the Virgin Islands through third parties, for installation by third parties, coming to see the work being installed and returning to resolve disputes is an insufficient process to reasonably anticipate being haled into a Virgin Islands court. 1. Plaintiffs Have Not Established Defendant’s Minimum Contacts A finding of sufficient minimum contacts requires that “there be some act or acts by virtue of which defendant has purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of the EFTA00310011

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

DE ANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS et [ laws of the forum state.” Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 474-476. The purposeful availment requirement “ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person.” Id. at 475. Defendant’s payment for services rendered under its agreement with Molyneux, from Molyneux was the only “benefit” it sought and expected from it. The only source for his protection under that New York contract would have come from a New York | rm Fair Play and Substantial Justice Require This Court To Decline of Jurisdiction Even if this Court were to conclude that Defendant had sufficient minimum contacts, it should decline to exercise personal jurisdiction, because the assertion of jurisdiction would not | comport with fair play and substantial justice. Urgent v. Technical Assistance Bureau, Inc., | 255 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (D.V.I. 2003)(“It is not enough that TAB has minimum contacts with the Virgin Islands; the exercise of personal jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”). The factors that the Court should consider in evaluating whether the assertion of | jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice “include: the burden on the defendant, the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the controversies, and the shared interest of the several States in furthering | fundamental substantive social policies.” Id. (quoting Pennzoil Products Co. v. Coletti & | Assoc., Inc., 149 F.3d 197, 205-06(3d Cir. 1998)). Defendant submits that its activities in the | | EFTA00310012

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

| dispute as outlined by either party herein counsel a ruling for Defendant. The only factor favoring Plaintiffs is one of “convenient” relief. | Il], THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISH | A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY CONTRACT AND THE NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF DEFENDANT IN THIS COURT. In Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, they allege the separate contracts between Plaintiff Epstein and Molyneux, then between Molyneux and Defendant Fancelli. FAC, para. 4 &7. The Plaintiffs, however, attempt to bridge the chasm with a very interest Affidavit from Mr. Molyneux. His Affidavit, authored in New York, signed on December 28, 2010, but the original was || not delivered until after the Opposition herein had been filed, contains several statements so inconsistent with the facts as to be charitably regarded as prevarications by Defendant. The Molyneux contract with Defendant stated a very limited scope of work that should not be expanded by a court beyond its own boundaries. The Court is also asked to judicially notice his First Amended Complaint in Molyneux v. Epstein, Dist. Ct. No. 10-cv-34, in which he readily conceded that he and Defendant, an-internationally known woodworking craftsman, satisfied their obligations to Plaintiffs, a fact further acknowledged by Plaintiffs when their agent signed off on the punch list, noting that all of the woodwork on the list was done (paragraphs 14, 18). Def. Exhibit C. That agent signed off on an impressive listing of punch list items, some of which go beyond Defendant’s scope of work. Def. Exhibit D. An Exhibit to that Complaint further EFTA00310013 |

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

| AANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS al. v. Fane. i noted that Oak was the wood to be used by Defendant in fabricating the cabinets. Defendant maintains that any duty owed to Plaintiffs did not exceed that owed to | Molyneux. Molyneux agreed that it had been satisfied and, with the three minor punch items referenced therein, so did Plaintiffs. IV. PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO JOIN AN INDISPENSIBLE PARTY The Affidavit of Molyneux similarly shows how integral he is to all aspects of this dispute; he is the pivot, the fulcrum and the glaring inconsistency to the polarized parties. VY. THIS TERRITORY IS AN INCORRECT FORUM FOR THIS ACTION It cannot be gainsaid that the whole of this dispute blossoms from an agreement made in New York between Plaintiff Epstein (wherever he was residing in 2005) and Molyneux (New York), then an agreement between Molyneux and Fancelli (New York). It is respectfully submitted that the law of the State of New York will be operative throughout this litigation on matters sounding in contract and, to a lessor extent, derivative matters of negligence as well. Although this Honorable Court has mechanisms for the application of foreign law, 5 V..C. 4926- 28, we are not stepped in its subtle applications to commercial transactions such as these. It is respectfully submitted that this action should be dismissed or stayed for this reason as well, with leave to the litigants to file with the appropriate New York court. Defendant submits that the individuals and documents evolving from this genesis are similarly in and immediately around New York and the contracting parties’ offices in Europe. i EFTA00310014

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

When the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action | should be heard in another forum, the court may stay or dismiss the action in | whole or in part on any conditions that may be just. 5 V.I.C. 4905. | VI. DEFENDANT MAY CLAIM BENEFIT OF RELEASE AT THIS JUNCTURE In addition to dismissal based upon a plaintiff's failure to plead sufficient facts to “plausibly suggest” some cognizable cause of action, dismissal also is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) if there is a dispositive legal issue,' or if (cither) plaintiff lacks statutory standing | to bring suit? | Vil. THE STANDING OF EACH DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO INQUIRY In their First Amended Complaint, it is alleged “[iJn 2005, Epstein engaged the architectural and design services of Juan Pablo Molyneux and J.P. Molyneux Studio, Ltd. (“Molyneux”) to design a large-scale, multi-structure, multi-million dollar residential project to be constructed on Little St. James Island in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. As part of this | project, Epstein contracted with Molyneux for the architecture and design of the interior and exterior of a separate building on Little Saint James Island known as the Office Pavilion.” FAC,, para. 4, p. 2. They also state that Plaintiff L.S.J., LLC, is the owner of Little St. James Island. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989) 2 See v. 454 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2006)(affirming dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of statutory standing). EFTA00310015

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

DANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FAC, para. 2, but it does not say when this Plaintiff came into existence in Delaware to own this residence “to be constructed.” Given the foregoing and for purposes of Count J-Breach of Contract, Defendant would ordinarily focus on Plaintiff Epstein. Perhaps and for purposes of Count II-Negligence within the two count First Amended Complaint, Defendant would ordinarily focus on Plaintiff LSJ. Defendant does not acquiesce to Plaintiffs contentions that both are beneficiaries of Epstein’s | agreement with Molyneux and submits that it is sufficiently unclear from the face of Plaintiffs” | pleading to call it to the attention of the Court. | | | | VILL. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ARE PROPER CONSIDERATION FOR DISMISSAL | Defendant reiterates the matter referenced in VI, above, but otherwise acknowledges its | intention to raise additional affirmative defenses in any Answer it may be required to file and as | may be developed through discovery. The reservation of rights was just that. Vv. CONCLUSION | Plaintiffs Amended Complaint against Defendant Fancelli must be dismissed, with | prejudice, for all, or any of the foregoing reasons. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant the following relief: A. To dismiss the Complaint and each Count within it, with prejudice; | | EFTA00310016

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

DEFEt DANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS Epste! i. v. Fancelli eling, Inc. Page 14 B. To award Defendant its costs, including attorney’s fees, | incurred in the defense of this action; and | | | Cc. To award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. | . ae Dated this @ ® th day of March, 2011. Attorneys for Defendant 5035 Norre Gade, P.O. Box 310 St. Thomas, VI 00804-0310 PHONE: FAX: EMAIL: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | I hereby certify that on this &@ th day of March, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon Denise Francois, Esquire, Hodge & Francois, #1340 | Taarneberg, St. Thomas, V.I. 00802. | | EFTA00310017

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

-—~— DORBHOTOS TeInFax YSnosy wepuazap oy: re udNeD9} Aesop h Hes ;ssamigng jo soeid rerioe,, “uonag.stin Jo sosodind ion na Palg 94 T1eys dares YoNs Jo Jord tzaMV0 Yowe Jo sKep Aywamy UTIL ; : 4 ra} paroaggo 9q 03 Sunprear puv Areatfop yons ‘paares oq 0} uossed oy) pure omy ‘duo | ~ 7 4 "=" Saonses STN Jo mos . aia isureSe uoHoL-ue suIgou0D 10 AsuIONE Ue WON ST UOHROTUNUITIOS ot} ‘sonou on to cma M aqvonoeidun st sotazas yt ‘goanp . Aiieamee YU) ‘SLAIOUTO JO Ssarppe waye2 Aq ‘Joor94) Vprsyno ayy Uo Suryeotput soe r “unos ogi Se-a9uueW ons wigs 3 Agi j0U pus ;jenUspyuoo:puy [euosIed,, pussoi ety Surrveq plied Sieg, we Ul-ssoutsng-jo-oourd [emoe soy JO Sy We partes 2Q 0} UO! Sees =U} 0} [FeuL-ssuyo }s1y Aq suowus ayy Surpreur Aq 10 souepisal UMOUY i F SC] Jol] -1O- Sty Iw-paares 9q 0} uOSad oy] oO} suOWUIS oy) SurfreUT ead hs yatpTo fq pur podtes oq 01 uosred atp Jo spoge Jo aovjd [ensn 40 goed tierce © Sut{jamMp ‘ssoutstiq yo sourd penis" oy} Je UONaIOsIp pue oe sjquiins | jo uosied v % ayes OU UII suoUTUNs. oy) Suraatep Aq “7 JO ‘poaros thi seid ‘DY PAY 9q [Teys 2o1A39s Yons Jo Jord ‘3210 yore Jo : 2q 0 Uoenad is Pat0eH9 99 0} BixqTeu pur Supxype yons ‘poatos 99 09 woszod omp on cams omy UTE suomaIMs orp Sapaaytep 64 T ou Jsurese UONO” Ue suIZ0UOD 10 AoWONe Ue woy * Spoqeur Sarmoyjoy g i am jo Aue Aq apeur oq TTeys uosiad fernjeu e uodn sotases [eUOSIag . * — suosiad yeanjyeu & uodn aofAres euosieg “gg § “(Z) Vorstarpgns peppe ‘Sg6I ‘1 “AON “We ‘062 “YO “S861 “T «TVW TYD8T .LNAOUN,, Pussy op Funwaq odoyeaws ue ur ‘paisonbau ydrsoo2 wanyax *|yeus poynsso Xq ssso1yo AsuaSe 2yn)s poysoods wodn so1ases jeuosiad Burzuoyne woysyaaad © pe o3 (Z) VOISTAIPANS papuatiE “E66 I “I “VEL “HW? “hy UW? ‘Z661 “1 SINTNGNAAY 766 9poqe Jo sovrd yensn 30 sould Sunjamp ‘ J Wle4p ‘ssoutsng Jo sovjd yemov oH) Jao JO Joop ay 0) suouruns otp Surxyze Aq ‘oouattp onp wim Speur 2q JOURS Om) pue a0 sydexfezed sapun S01AIas roy + . , kousde 30 y0TyO ut Yons J9A0 UORoIpsunf jeuosrad ureygo ©) pasinbos oq [TeYs Yorym “AousTe aeis 10 Ayoedes peroyyo uv ut Ajapos pens J20yJO EIS B UO BOTAJNS [BUOSIOY,, OSMBTO I YIM ,,” * * av] JO vorstaod Aus WIA oy) UT, UUdaq yeM OSNElD ay Buyoutdas Aq (Z) woystarpqns papuawe ‘E661 “61 390 “H “OTp “HO “£661 “I SLINAWGNGIAY £661 “WONIES Sti] JO GUO UOTSTAIpqns Japun soIAIes Jo sasodind Joy aye}s om SoyNNSUOD YoIUA AUD JaINO JO [PUNQL ‘uOIstAIp ‘worsstuMMOS ‘neainq ‘prog ‘KoueZe Aue 0} Jojo1 0} poursdp oq [[eys AousTe syeIs ue) Wy UOTSTAIpgns sty Jo sosodind Joy “Aouade oy) JO JTeyoq uo so1Ales yeuosied ydao0e 0) ‘Jfastay 10 JleswTY 0} ONTppe uy ‘uossod ouo ysvo] ye oeUBIsop Jeys AousSe yons Aaag JO JIOWJO SANNIEXA Jory OY, “sIONO] [eNdeo ut TVW TVORT LINADUN,, Pussy amp sreaq edojaaua ou} Jo juOI Ip ssajun aanoaya "80E § HOIAWaS GNV NOLLOrasrunr ore sie waa ‘soe § EFTA00310018

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

SOTAIas HIM osuedsip Avur umoo orp tig, ‘juardddutoour om uodn pue 99) 4 -yuNWOD oq) uodn syEIs oy) UIEAFAt SuOUTUNS dy ButAres ATTeUOSIOd q a: Speul aq [Tes pawtodde ussq sey say TUMWUOD v WOYm' Joy pue sITEyFE Sty A dBeuEW 0} Udedwoour aq 0} parejoop “Aqjerarpat uosjad v uodn eotazes of Teuosiog Leaameainen 9q 0) pasepoop Atrerorpiat wosied e wody (q) © ‘ws | a Too 4 4o szeoX woaumnog Jo Fe ayy Jo st juvsur om Jy ‘pakojduse st oy woyn = Aq 20 ‘sapisex oy woyss WIM uosied z9II0 Aue uodn’ ‘sys oy) UTEpIM y' are QUOU jt ‘IO ‘SapIsal yesUT oy] WoYA YIM osnods y[npe ue uodn ‘polueur's! yueyur au Jt ‘10 Apoysnd yeSay Suraey uosiod Aue so uerprens = Aut 10 yuared v uodn ayes oy UWI suOUTUNs om SuTAres ATTeUOSI0d 3 Aq epeut aq [jeqs yuesur ue uodn eorares [euosIeg “UBsuT Ue Uod/ (e) 2 * 806 WIS pepuowre 161 "1 dog. we “OI "Y> “1L6T “1 : SINDAGNSWY TL6T . gMVB] SUOPBIDI OASAWOP V2 JO OMy-KUIGD _ Anog pus samp ‘oma sydesBesed popuale “pL6t *L Aine “YP “SOL “"W “PLET “I SINFNGNAWY PL6T “gomjou yons Jo stares" JO} samnpasoad i Squosep ORM paw wawpaf yYouzop v Jo AnjuD oy 0} JoUd skep OZ 18va} Ww U9ATs 9q SN 2oNOU [RUOHIPpe UoTRSTgo [emseNUOD e Jo ywausAeduou 305 uosied jesnyeu & 8 ysureBe vonoe ue uy yeY sopraczd yo! YderSused pomusssopun mou @ Surppe Aq BOE W1dD papususe “gL6T “| “wer W? ‘pre “UP “LL61 “1 SLNGINGNANY LL6T a eet Jo (¢) ydusBumd mony “vonesy Qo fenyeNUOD w Jo juoWAeduoU wodn paseq wosied yesnyeu & rsuteSe UORDe ue ul jwowSpnf yneyap e ayM) 0) poxInba sonou jeUONIppE oy or BunElor BOE UIdd Jo (¢) ydwidesed Sujmoyyos ydesSered poreuSsopun op poyeadas ‘1961 ‘1 “Wer YH? “LL “ ‘9861 “1 SLNAWGNAWNY 986T *samnpeoosd ,,8uijreut pus Juyreu,, pue so1as9s paiupsqns Jo wawaznbas Suyyous SupAysyws jo sueows arpeusoye Suypjroad Aq snoy pue omy sydesZered popuswie “1961 “SI AInf “H9 “STI “W “L861 “I SLNGINGNAWY L86t "aayEAIaSu0D iH 40 yusjadwoou ‘yueyuy ue uodn doJA108 feUOSIAg “60E § “o}Aros ons Jaye sXep Awa) URPIm pory oq soIAIIs PaIMNsqns Jo joord wy auynbas 01 {(p) ou) (€) ‘pang popuowe *g96] ‘1 deg “yo ‘9/7 "YO “3961 “1 SINGWGNUWYV 8961 "BOE WORoes Mou o Pavesuy Pus BOE YTdD Asus poyeadax ‘Oz6T ‘1 dag “He ‘768 "NO “OLEI “1 SINDAGNGWY OL6T «« CDOUDPISAs, OF WJaIOIN ,SsaUppE, POM oy) SuruEYyD 4 py wns a nto Aeon ape og on nom z wena, “powslayaud wry 8 o2 pom 09 ove sopew pegyoeds wen 30 wee mp pun exquee Sapeage 40§ SaatTewWayye Jayjo ¢ 10 Z *] sydexdemd yey AyueyO oy ‘Yoes Jo pus oy ¥ ,J0, puom oAnoUNfsp oy Pps O} PepuduE oq Pynom Zz pue | syde/uIeY,, “yexnau Jepusd aynyeys ‘oxeE 0} L978, paysyTduOoOR st JoEAIOS JOAOyDIYM JO SKUp OZ UNAM Paty oq O}—SUOISTAIPAnS WO J2=pUN—soIAIaS Jo Joos asmbaz O} ‘say10 Yoed Jo Shep “yoeoead tall si OIStAIpQns papuswe *6961 “I "URE "O°STI "US "886 “I w Se "p40 ¢ ‘7 ‘| sydesBered xopun weyp saqer “p pun z ‘| sydexdered zopun alla Palys Qawy sidwoy WoBrxp ox9yM 29PJO yO? 0} BuxpsOD0" gotAI08 Jo opow SINDAGNAWY 8861 Feelve JO 95n ot MoT 0) “¢ YdexSered uy pasodosd s} sFuey> seqUS y,, 4 Ssauysng Jo soepd *y udesdered ur er a ar cerenny 1 TeqaA OUT “UORIppE Uy, Tenyoe,, 0} Suruyevad (9)80€ UTdd PaPPe 'S66T “1 “UeL We *TET “YO “P661 “T * wasaid ye se-'¢ so 7 ‘| sydesSemed SINQAGNGAY $661 ~~ uewy seqyes Leh | glut Jopun oowses Jopd yw sydwene mojaq *xipuaddy Ip oyew ysnw ew pue Buyreu, Aq sorasas paymnsqns " uy OL 30 loswryy TPeav 0} 29pz0 us rein opracad on popusuze 99 plnom p ydesTureg,, wy smeodde ‘snogo “(p) pus (¢) “(z) “spans uy or paxrajs ‘tow § {POIeIS Sem I} UEaTOyM “aNIE[sIFe] a) 01 OdsY [L6T SONATA SSOUD “1 Asenaqaz souasajuod JerIpny otp Aq popuowuiosa: sem youpuoure Sm, “ssoutsng Jo aozid sii se yno pjey sey ‘yWwouespI2ApE 10 “60E § BOIAWS GNV NOLLOIastune IZ-e 0z-E ‘ wad *g0€ § EFTA00310019

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Paes I HORM Uy “aneTsTSeT Or6T 9a) 0} Hoda Sit U} sousz=}4OD TePIpAr 2m) Aq popuauUoDas juawpuERrY ___ PUP TIE WIAD © () ydeuSesed poppe ‘gu61 ‘1 adag yo “Sys Yo ‘9161 “1: SINDNGNHAY 9161 7 . ‘OENSIp Joogos & uodn aqraros wsoAos ©) £ YdeaBured payouus ruawpuaiTe 9/61 Y “IOLISIP ,JOOUDS,, B 0} souaazar . om Bupgns 4q g qdwiSered popuoure “1161 ‘Zz YOU “IP “LI "WO "LL6I “1 . : . ‘qesinau 29pue8 uoRoos ox Supreus pur ‘ojqeoyoesdusy st (8) uorstarpqns Japun coves axaym suoNenats Sumuaao$ (q) uorsyaypqus mou Supppe ‘(v) uoysyarpqne gu ydexBered Sumuodo oi Suyoquinu Aq uonres oy popuowre ‘7661 *] “URL BH? “LEE “W-'9661 “T ea ae "@90E WIdd Aq pamoye sep ozy om Denia Pstoa}j9 9q 1ouUEO Sotaras F aprat oq Kew woREoydde Ue yeM sopiaoad sup “oaye ur 44 pomore skep Awamy paxpuny ouo oy) URUK, Wal , «JO (8) voystarpqns Aq 203 pares 2ofA298 Jo Jord op oy pu asnoos o2 oun Us, Surperdas £q (a) uorsiaspqns papusure ‘661 *Z Ain “> "Z0z "YO "R661 “1 “LOE 40 90€ § me] LONEIOds0> WOIg-20}-1ON 9 OF UeNsInd Paaias 3q Osfe Aeus voneipdioo yyoJd-10}-10u v pue LOE JO 90¢ § “TO'A 01 : jwensind parses 0q osje Aew voEOds09 ssoulsng ¥ Jem SuIprAoad ssouaites Omi Ist aN Zurppe Aq popuoume ‘6661 ‘ez AIDE “YW? “IPE “YD ‘6661 1 “wore20dJ09 Jo yuaBe payeus|sep soI 10 ems Jo Armaxos todn sojaies 0} se ‘soja “xipuaddy ur ‘19g pus 90¢ “por §§ “To°a 2g SHINTAAIAA SSOU ~ *serIp “oonoU jNoWIM voNOU! uodn ‘THE § BOIAUES ONY NOLLO1asrunr ste “unoo otf) se ‘aLIOy Yons axe) Avul aoxAr0s Jo Jooid pur ‘souueUT ySns ’ ut opeur oq Azur uoneiodios ayy uodn sotares ‘mey 12416 Aue Jo uoroes Si} JO (B) WOIstAIpans Jo suo YydusSered sapun syquonowsdunt st [one q Sp JO Q-XIS pospuny ‘senp uoNoes Aq pamorye sXep USM) parpuny = By = 2u0 om UNpYm UOHBIOdsO9 UBya10} 10 OpseuLop B UOdn soIAIes JT (4) : “preog oy Jo soqurow ‘ue 10 saisny Aue ‘yI9[9 ey} 0} ‘OLNSTP Jog} 40 oSemnes oped e uodn “g oy UE poUYyop se ‘xa9yJo [OOYS w 0} “JOLNSIP [ooYDS 8 wodn “7 " $aaysnuy Aue Jo ‘yzepo ‘oXwur oy 0} ‘aBuyIA v uodn “9 ‘ylefo ey] Jo JosiAsedns oy 0} ‘uo B uodn “¢ ; . tramsvan Jo Kowlone ‘yzo19 ‘srostaodns Jo preoq Ip) JO 419] 30 FEY ot 0} ‘AjuNO v Ud “p ‘aurea Joqjoue Jopun uonsuny Surpuodsauos v Summopod JoJo ue 0} ‘sIIOIJO yons syse{ Aj9 ay) JT 0 ‘yaI]D JO yesuNoD ‘ramsean ‘rofonduros ‘1okeut ayy: 0} ‘Aj19 sso Aue uodn ‘¢ . _ S&qun0o oA MON, J0.429]9 Bp JO soyjo om UT pay BuIA v ut ssdgoxd ayo00I 01 parwudisep uostad Aue 0} Jo jasunoo uopeodz09 oy 0} SHOX MN 30 Aato,otp toda <= ; : ‘Navy. udqer0di69 ayoxd-10}-3ou # ~~ «amyo tienes, pazpuny adit JO xis parpuny ver woos o} ensind pares 9q osye Agu uoNeIods09 yyo3d-10j-y0u y ‘mej woNEIOd109 ssouysng oy} Jo usAds poxpuny sory) JO XIs paxpuNy’ samp Toes : . ©} Juensind posrss oq -osfe Avut uonelodios ssouisng W “solAIes axyeoad“oraeyXq 10 qounuiodde “Aq"pezowne ywase oo Aue 0} = 40 JOMYSUS iepstH¥e 1d IStysdo Jo ‘yuaTe pes9UDT 30 BurBvuvw ‘ojaIp —. “Faoyjo ‘ue o1 ‘uomesodsoo uStaoy 30 onsowop Aue uodn ‘| ‘SMOTOJ SF SuOUTUMS ot) ButIeAt[op Aq apeu oq [[eYysS UOISIAIPQNS [BIUSUIUISAOS 10 UONEIOdJOO & uOdN aotaras JeUOsIOg (2) . . “aoysfaypqns “dryssouped poynayy v uodn ao1os Teuossed 20} apjaoud 0} uonoes pappe ‘6661 ‘LZ AIME H? “IE YO “6661 “I SINTWANGAY 6661 EE wid ‘Tre § EFTA00310020

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

03/10/11 11:15AM HP LASERJET FAX p.02 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN whaee JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., ; Plaintiffs, ; v. } NO, ST-10-CV-443 FANCELLI PANELING, INC., ; Defendant. ; (CARROLL, J.) ee | STATE OF NEW YORK |) COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) CHRISTIAN BARTHOD, having been sworn, deposes and says as follows: 1, Tam an employce of Pancelli Paneling, Inc., and I submit this affidavit in order to apprise the Court of the facts of the purported service of process on the defendant herein. 2. First, | can say without doubt that I am the person described in the affidavit of attempted service submitted by “Frederick Pringle.” Mr. Pringle states that he attempted to serve a copy of the Summons and First Amended Complaint at the offices of Fancelli Paneling, Inc., 24 East 64" Street, New York, NY on August 5 and August 10, 2010, and each time, he was informed by “an individual” that they did not have the authority to accept service of legal documents. | am that individual. 3. On November 26, 2010, we received a voicemail at the office of Fancelli Paneling, Inc., from a name sounding to me like “Charles Gregario,” stating that he was a potential client interested in paneling for a library. I spoke with Mr. “Gregario” later that day. He told me he EFTA00310021

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

03/10/11 11:15AM HP LASERJET FAX p.03 had seen the Fancelli Paneling website and had a potential project - a library - in mind. He seemed vague as to details, so I asked him to send plans. He said be did not have any, but wanted to visit the Fancelli showroom. | set an appointment with him for November 29, 2010 at 5:30 4. On November 29, 2010, Charles Gregario called again to make sure that I would be in at 5:30, He appeared at the showroom around that time, and appeared nervous to me. He made some comments as to how nice the office was and requested my business card. When I went to get it, he took his bag from the chair and placed it on the work table. I handed him my card and he confirmed that I am Christian Barthod. 5. I requested his card, but instead he pulled out a large yellow envelope. He said, “I hope you are not going to be mad, but I have to do this, | am sorry.” He handed me the envelope and quickly closed his bag and prepared to leave. I said, “ I had the feeling it was something like that. You know I cannot accept that envelope, I am not an officer. I am nota part of the corporation.” 6. He answered, “It does not matter. You are an employee?” | responded that I was, He said, “ That is the same thing.” | asked, again, for his business card. He told me “It does not matter who I am. [J glad you are not furious.” I responded “You just do what you have to do.” He left. Nu. & ified in Fork a > Qe ¥ EFTA00310022

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

ae Jap Case: 3:10-cv-00034-CVG-RM Document #:8 Filed: 06/11/10 Page 1 of 5 Ke. al DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 4 a. Molyneux Studio, Ltd. and Juan Pablo Molyneux FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ~against- Cask No. 3:10-cv-00034 Jeffrey Epstein and ’ L.SJ., LLC. . x ee ee PLAINTIFFS, by and through the undersigned counsel, for their First Amended Complaint allege as follows: JURISDICTION AND AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 1. Plaintiff Juan Pablo Molyneux is a citizen of the State of New York. 2. MB. Molyneux Studio, Ltd. is incorporated in the State of New York and maintains its principal place of business in the State of New York. 3. Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen of the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands. . ; 4. Upon information and belief, the remaining Defendant, L.S.J., LLC, is Organized in the State of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business within the U.S, Virgin Islands. : . . 5. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because the amount in controversy exceeds $75 ,000,. .exclusive of costs, interest and disbursements and the Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different states. 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), (c). EFTA00310023

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case: 3:10-cv-00034-CVG-RM Document #:8 Filed: 06/11/10 Page 2 of 5 FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 7. Juan-Pablo Molyneux is a world-renowned interior designer. . 8. Jeffrey Epstein, via his company L.S_J., LLC, is the owner of Little Saint James, a 70-acre island within the U.S. Virgin Islands. 9. In 2005, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the Plaintiffs would provide design services for the residential compound Epstein was constructing on Little Saint James. : 10.Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties with respect to the design services to be provided by Plaintiffs, 11.0n May 15, 2009, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement, annexed hereto, whereby the Defendants released all claims ey might have had against the Plaintiffs in exchange for $1, wi ion. 12. Following the Settlement Agreement Wye WN into a Wri WS) contract on May 15, 2009, entitled Agreement for Design Services (“Design Services Agreement”), annexed: hereto, wherein the parties agreed that the Plaintiffs would perform certain design services telated to the office pavilion being constructed by Defendants on ' Little Saint James, for which Plaintiffs would credit Defendants’ account with Plaintiffs in the amount of $250,000 to be applied toward such services. The specific services to be provided were itemized on Exhibit B to the Design Services Agreement (the “Exhibit B Services”). — 13. The Settlement Agreement specifically provides that the Design ‘ Services Agreement “shall not be treated as an inducement to the execution of the Settlement Agreement.” Settlement Agreement at q 2 14. Subsequent to the execution of the Design Services Agreement, Plaintiffs, with the assistance of an intemationally-known woodworking craftsman, undertook d did perform the Exhibit B Services, thereby satisfying their eéligntions pursuant to the Design Services oy + > EFTA00310024

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case: 3:10-cv-00034-CVG-RM Document #: 8 Filed: 06/11/10 Page 3o0f5 -15.On January 26 and 27, 2010, Plaintiffs travelled to Little Saint James to supervise the final stages of the work pursuant to the Design Services Agreement. It was agreed that Epstein would be present in order to give his approval of the work. Epstein, however, failed to attend this agreed meeting. 16.On March 10, 2010, Defendants’ agent created a Punch List cataloguing certain'tasks remaining to be completed pursuant to the Design Services Agreement. . 17.0n March 22, 2010, Plaintiffs again travelled to Little Saint James to meet with Epstein in an effort to finalize the work performed by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Design Services Agreement. Epstein again failed to attend the agreed meeting. In an effort to perform their obligations under the Design Services Agreement, Plaintiffs and their representatives, nevertheless, undertook to complete, and did complete, the Punch List items falling under the Design Services Agreement. 18:On March 25, 2010, alee” egret signed off on all items enumerated on the Punch List by signing it and noting that all the woodwork on the list was done with the exception of three minor items, none of which was specified in Exhibit B to the Design _ Services Agreement. (18)atthough their agent had signed off on the Punch List, Defendants’ counsel sent a letter to Plaintiffs on April 15, 2010, claiming that Plaintiffs had failed to perform their obligations pursuant to the Design Services Agreement. . B In the letter, Defendants’ counsel also claimed that the Plaintiffs fraudulently induced Defendants to enter both the Settlement Agreement and the Design Services Agreement. 21.In an effort to resolve the dispute, Plaintiffs’ representatives once again traveled to Little Saint James on April 29, 2010 to meet with Defendants’ representatives. The meeting was unproductive and Defendants’ counsel continued wrongfully to insist that Plaintiffs had not satisfied their obligations with respect to the Design Services Agreement. £ EFTA00310025

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case: 3:10-cv-00034-CVG-RM Document #: 8 Filed: 06/1110 Page 4 of 5 FIRST CLAIM DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 22. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs one through 21 above. . 23. There are justiciable controversies with respect to the following issues: ; a. Whether the Plaintiffs substantially performed their duties as required by the Design Services Agreement; : b. _ Whether Defendants violated their duty of good faith and ' fair dealing under the Design Services Agreement by engaging in conduct that was inconsistent with the terms and purpose of that agreement and the reasonable expectations of the parties by, among other things: (a) wrongfully rejecting the Plaintiffs’ work with respect to the Exhibit B Services; . and, (b) absenting themselves from the meetings between the. parties which were held to resolve their differences, thereby interfering with and failing to cooperate with Plaintiffs in the performance of their obligations; and c. Whether, as alleged in Defendants’ April 15, 2010 letter pr ple Plaintiffs ly induc endants to enter the : Seftlement Agreement and the Design Services Agreement. . 24.A declaration of the rights among the parties is warranted pursuant to * 28 U.S.C. § 2201. . WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants as follows: . a. Adjudging and declaring that Plaintiffs substantially performed their duties as required by the Design Services Agreement; EFTA00310026

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case: 3:10-cv-00034-CVG-RM Document #:8 Filed; 06/11/10 Page 5 of 5 b. Adjudging and declaring that the Defendants violated their duty of good faith and fair dealing under the Design Services Agreement; and c. Adjudging and declaring that Plaintiffs did not fraudulently induce Defendants to enter the Settlement Agreement or the Design Services Agreement, and that the Settlement Agreement and Design Services Agreement are valid and enforceable; and d. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just. ’ DATED: June 11, 2010 St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands By: Respectfully Submitted, Rosh D. Alger Esquire, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rosh D. Alger, Esq. VI Bar No. 932 PMB 10 Royal! Dane Mall #12 St. Thomas, VI 00802 Tel. (340) 626-0787 . Fax (866)-211-2646 EFTA00310027

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Case: 3:10-cv-00034-c¥e-Rubitodtment #: 8-3 Filed: 06/11/1 OePageMsfpomex MOLYNEUX __”™ ARCHITECTURAL INTERIORS & DECORATION 4ARUCEE CHAPON “3003 POVRIS, PRANCT. 29 FAST 691 STREET 2 DEM YORK. NEW YORK 12s 628 HOvT . Wet hae ie ae or PAX (212) 257 O26 betty ata so hag FO UE ge anally ancmecters finn ovine FOE FOES o* Harty net tareetie ir FANCELLI PANELING 10/14/2008 VENDOR: 24 EAST 64TH STREET pan” -- - NEWYORK NF -1-002 JH __$_—_~-- nn 212-935-6537 "sath nema 212-935-6538 Fax QUANTITY | DESCRIPTION . GNIT Cost EXTENDED Cost | } Woodworking 780,000.00 780,000.00 FABRICATION & INSTALLATION of light oak with waxed finish cabinetry per JPM design. Will include survey, shop drawings, moldings of base, lower cabintery with doors and upper bookshelves 3 hidden cabinet doors and interior window shutter columns with bases and crown. Will include packing _ insurance and waterproof container to St. thomas and crew travel. Cost will not inclade 2 globes, flat base (stone) transportation of goods to St. James, scaffolding, local taxes, customes or workman's accomodations NOTE: THIS PO REPLACES PO#2680 Deposit Required: § 0.00 Total:$ 780,000.00 cK#—__ Payments: $ 780,000.00 Account #: Terms: 100% Deposit eS DO NOT PROCESS THIS ORDER EMI ESS SIRCIPICATIONS AND PRICHS ARE CORRECT a PRIERAL. 29764 austanPM /LSJ-OFFICE / OFFICE/ = curs: LSJ-OFFICE OFFICE . ree sur To: . . aes ATELIER FANCELLI , —_ 63 RUE ALBERT CRAEMED iY: DAHLENNE EE PROSE SE THORTZ ED SIGXA PERK DUSDT Fae TO situ (eR OKDER NIFH WO Et sree SOS VOR LE me PAO WET OK OOTIN AP AT EGA TON CONTRACTORS STEEN PLRCENT O87 ii: HU FAL SRD KE Te KHEeED He VERE EARL 11 S291 TCS ST PROPER BOREMENS COMPENKA TION INSI KANE Dem 1 MENMIALENS SYRESALE # 15-310-2323 * EFTA00310028

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Document #013 Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device . Meeting August 20" 2010 From: Doug Schoettle <daschoettle@yahoo.. com> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2070 69:58:56 -0800 (PST) To: < ce: ; a: EE: 0:0 Subject: Fancelli Punch List Rowles { FANCELLI PUNCH LIST Wood Paneling at LS) Office a Complete the installation of the toe molding at the baseboard. Material on site. 2. Install closure trim piece of oak belowthe picture window sill to fill gap approx. | 3 cm high, the length of the window. ' -3-— Finish rough, unfinished end condition at the sliding panels at the picture window. <> Drill, file and sand perforations at tilt down desk panels to remove rough and ragged edges. ~s< Glue and clamp open joints in paneling through out the room. +6. Generally sand rough finishes and raised grain at paneling through out the room. = Replace tortise shell inlay where it is pieced or flaking and delaminating, “87 Repair cabinet door hardware so that the screw does not loosen when the handle is rotated to operate door and so the hardware does not rattle. <= Supply and*install two turtle pulls at tilt down desk panels. Oiao—neptacu-becbeo-ash at. all cabinet doors with metal mech ano dark color thet will not rust. 11. Replace the non functioning blackboards with slate that will take chalk. The existing surface has been wiped clean with water and dried. The surface does not take chalk satistactorly. _ 2. Provide additional light bulbs for the shelf lights inside the cabinets and provide the specification. 1~—43-—-tenfirm-the—size—ofthe-carpet—and-previde—under_padding - Paso e418. The staining of the cornice should be like the Escorial Library with Light and dark. BRIST 15.1he staining of the columns should highlight the carvings with light and dark. tT 36.A11 wood surfaces in the room are to be Finished, currently the undersides of the desk tops are unfinished. 17.Interiors of the cabinets are to be stained darker so as not to appear orange when the shelf lights are on. IA}IT 18. ALL wood surfaces are to be varnished. “ 19. The sliding panels are unfinished plywood, how are they to be finished? 20. ALL wines WORK 15 DoNeE on THE LIST OTHER fx Bphev ISBVESE |. sewd vS Lite BetBs | 2. Scene 4S BAMBoe Geal/ bile ¢ small 3, BLACKBOARD. 3/25/2010 EFTA00310029