ST. CROIX — Six women who sued former Virgin Islands officials over their alleged role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation have filed a 51-page brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asking it to undo a lower court’s dismissal of the case.
The plaintiffs, identified as Jane Does 1 through 6 to protect their identities, filed the brief on Monday. It asks the appeals court to vacate the May 5 judgment of U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian in Manhattan and reinstate their Second Amended Complaint.
The plaintiffs, through attorney Annette Hasapidis, filed a notice of appeal on May 11, six days after the judgment.
The lawsuit was filed on November 22, 2023, as a proposed class action. It alleged that the defendants made the U.S. Virgin Islands a “safe haven” for Epstein’s sex trafficking. The named defendants were the Virgin Islands government, former Governors John de Jongh Jr. and Kenneth Mapp, former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, former Attorney General Vincent Frazer, former Senators Celestino White and Carlton Dowe, and Delegate to Congress Stacey Plaskett.
Additionally, 100 unnamed John Doe defendants were listed, including air traffic controllers, baggage handlers, police and U.S. Coast Guard agents.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants used their positions to pressure customs, Coast Guard, airport, and law enforcement officials to let Epstein bring people into the territory for commercial sex acts without interference. They brought claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, along with conspiracy, obstruction and negligence claims. The complaint also originally included a RICO claim, which was later withdrawn.
Subramanian ruled on March 21, 2025, dismissing the claims against all defendants except Plaskett. He dismissed the RICO and official-capacity claims against her but allowed certain individual-capacity claims to proceed, citing her personal ties to New York. Plaskett was the only defendant alleged to have traveled to New York and solicited funds from Epstein in person. The plaintiffs and Plaskett later stipulated to dismissal of the claims against her with prejudice, and the judge closed the case on September 23, 2025. His May 5 judgment formally granted the motions to dismiss all claims.
The judge dismissed the claims against the other defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning he concluded the court lacked the legal authority to hear claims against them in New York. He also found that the claims against Cecile de Jongh were barred by settlement releases the plaintiffs had signed with Epstein’s estate.
As part of the plaintiffs’ arguments on appeal, the brief raises three issues.
First, the plaintiffs argue that the District Court wrongly decided, on its own, that they had relied on section 302(a)(1) of New York’s long-arm statute when asserting jurisdiction based on a conspiracy theory. The judge wrote that no New York court had accepted conspiracy jurisdiction under that provision. The plaintiffs say their opposition papers cited cases that arose under a different provision, section 302(a)(2), and that the defendants never argued otherwise. They also note that an attorney for the Virgin Islands government agreed at oral argument that conspiracy could support jurisdiction under 302(a)(1). In their view, the District Court never analyzed whether the complaint met the requirements for conspiracy jurisdiction under 302(a)(2).
On the merits, the brief says the complaint meets those requirements. It identifies Epstein as the co-conspirator acting in New York and alleges that the defendants knew of his New York activity, benefited from it, and directed him to make payments from his New York bank accounts. The brief points to Second Circuit decisions saying that conspiracy jurisdiction “is not a difficult requirement” to satisfy, and it notes that at this stage the plaintiffs need only make a preliminary showing of jurisdiction, with all doubts resolved in their favor.
Second, the plaintiffs argue that the complaint establishes jurisdiction under section 302(a)(1) over John de Jongh, Mapp, White, Frazer, and the Virgin Islands government. That provision applies to defendants who transact business in New York, directly or through an agent, in a way connected to the claims.
The District Court found that the defendants were not alleged to have specifically wanted money from New York bank accounts and that the New York connection was “essentially adventitious.” It also found that the complaint did not allege Epstein acted as the defendants’ agent in New York. The plaintiffs say the complaint repeatedly alleges otherwise, citing numerous paragraphs in which the defendants directed that Epstein pay them or their designees from his New York accounts.
The brief relies heavily on the Second Circuit’s 2023 decision in Spetner v. Palestine Investment Bank, which held that a foreign bank could be sued in New York based on its repeated use of an agent’s correspondent account there. The plaintiffs argue that Epstein’s New York accounts played a similar role here. The brief also cites New York Court of Appeals decisions on bank transfers and kickback schemes, including Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank and Rushaid v. Pictet & Cie.
The payments the plaintiffs allege include a $50 million loan from Epstein to the Virgin Islands government to facilitate the sex trafficking ring, $625,000 in tuition payments for the de Jonghs’ children, a request from John de Jongh for a loan of about $200,000 to resolve a criminal settlement for misappropriation of public funds when he was governor, and campaign and charitable contributions. The plaintiffs say these payments bought “loyalty and access,” along with input on sex offender legislation and a waiver from registration requirements. They argue the claims arise from that business because the payments allowed Epstein to operate in the territory.
The brief also notes that the District Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery. It says the full extent of the defendants’ involvement cannot be known without it.
Third, the plaintiffs make two arguments about Cecile de Jongh.
They argue that jurisdiction exists over Cecile de Jongh under section 302(a)(2), which covers tortious acts committed within New York. They say she stayed at Epstein’s New York residence during the period covered by the complaint and that she acknowledged in a court filing that she “may have performed occasional urgent work” while there. The plaintiffs argue her statements cannot be accepted at this stage, and that discovery may show she made multiple trips and stayed for extended periods. They also say she communicated regularly with Epstein in New York and directed payments from his accounts.
On the releases, the District Court held that the settlement language, which covers anyone who “worked in any capacity” for Epstein, applied to Cecile de Jongh because the complaint and the plaintiffs’ own filings described her as his office manager. The plaintiffs say the court misunderstood their theory. They argue she is sued for conduct as First Lady of the Virgin Islands, using her political position, and not for work as Epstein’s employee, so the release does not reach it. They say Epstein paid her a salary for her office work and separately paid substantial sums in support of the alleged enterprise.
In the alternative, the plaintiffs argue the release language is ambiguous, and the claim should not have been dismissed before discovery. They cite U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff’s 2023 ruling in a related case against JPMorgan Chase, which found similar language in the Epstein victim compensation program’s release unclear. The plaintiffs also dispute the District Court’s statement that they appeared to concede she was covered by the release. They say that reading came from a double negative in a supplemental letter and that they never withdrew their opposition on the point.
The defendants-appellees have not yet filed responses.
Epstein was convicted in Florida in 2008 of procuring a child for prostitution. He was arrested again in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges and was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York on August 10, 2019, while awaiting trial.
