Sara Bronfman Makes Motion to Dismiss NXIVM Lawsuit
Sara Bronfman has filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in the NXIVM-related lawsuit – Edmondson Et Al v Raniere Et Al – in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
James D. Wareham, Robin A. Henry, Anne S. Aufhauser, and Alexis R. Casamassima of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP represent the former NXIVM financier and member of its executive board.
Bronfman is one of two targeted defendants – the other being her sister, Clare Bronfman. The two are the only defendants with sufficient money to justify the lawsuit, which involves 70 plaintiffs and a dozen attorneys.
Bronfman’s attorneys argued that the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (TAC) fails to provide the necessary factual allegations specifically relating to her to survive dismissal.
The TAC heavily relies on allegations from previous criminal proceedings against civil defendants Keith Raniere, Allison Mack, Kathy Russell, and Clare Bronfman – and against former civil defendants Nancy and Lauren Salzman – all of which had already been adjudicated, and non of which resulted in any indictment or prosecution of Sara Bronfman.
Sara further argues that Toni Natalie’s malicious prosecution/use of process claim (Count IV) and her gross negligence claim (Count VII) against her within the TAC are particularly vulnerable and should be dismissed.
Toni Natalie – who never met Sara Bronfman or had any sort of interactions with her whatsoever – claims that Sara nevertheless grossly disaffected her life.
Sara also alleges that the malicious prosecution/use of process claim in Count IV suffers from similar flaws as its previous versions in the original Complaint, and the First and Second Amended Complaints.
To withstand a motion to dismiss, Bronfman argues, Natalie, the sole plaintiff asserting the Count IV claim, must provide some factual allegations – even a flimsy shred – demonstrating how Bronfman was involved in actions that caused harm to her, and not merely speculative conclusory allegations or outright fabrications.
Bronfman claims the TAC fails to meet this requirement, leaving Natalie’s claims unsupported and subject to dismissal.
Similarly, Bronfman asserts that Natalie’s gross negligence claim in Count VII lacks any substantial or clarifying improvements compared to previous iterations
Natalie must either present factual allegations directly implicating Sara Bronfman – as opposed to the bald assertions she makes – or the claim must be dismissed as a matter of law.
Without any essential allegations, the Count VII claim lacks the necessary basis for further consideration.
Bronfman also claims the whole TAC should be dismissed with respect to her because it failed to establish sufficient factual allegations.
By law, the burden rests on the plaintiffs to provide factual support that qualifies for relief beyond a “speculative” level – which, according to Sara, is all the TAC offers.
Without legally sufficient allegations against Bronfman, as exemplified by the wholly unmeritorious and probably false claims of Natalie, the claims against Bronfman lack the foundation necessary to proceed.
The final decision of whether to dismiss some – or all – of the claims against Sara will be made by U.S. District Court Judge Eric Komitee.
Read the entire motion and memorandum of law.
Sara Bronfman reportedly lives in Portugal and may have secreted her estimated $500 million fortune outside the USA.
