Bryant v. Indyke et al. (2019), Civil Complaint Against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein

UpdatedSeptember 9, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Case Snapshot

Field	Details
Case	Bryant v. Indyke et al.
Docket	No. 1:19-cv-10479-ALC-DCF
Court	United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Filed	November 14, 2019
Plaintiff	Juliette Rose Bryant. Her name is redacted from the caption of the released complaint, but it appears in a later filing quoting the complaint.
Defendants	Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, solely in their capacities as co-executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein
Assigned judges	District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. and Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman
Claims pleaded	Battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress
Principal dispute	Whether the claims were timely and whether punitive damages could be recovered from Epstein’s estate
Outcome	Dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on October 15, 2020, after the plaintiff accepted an offer from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program
Merits ruling	None. The court did not decide whether the allegations were true and did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.

Key Takeaways

Bryant v. Indyke et al. was a civil action seeking damages from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate for alleged sexual abuse that began when Juliette Rose Bryant was 20 years old. The complaint alleged that Epstein used a supposed modeling opportunity to bring Bryant from South Africa to New York, transported her to his property in the United States Virgin Islands, and sexually assaulted her there and during later trips to his residences.

The complaint asserted two New York common law claims, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bryant alleged abuse at Epstein properties in New York, Florida, New Mexico, Paris, and the United States Virgin Islands. She also alleged that Epstein used his wealth, powerful associations, threats, and continued contact to control and silence her.

The estate’s co-executors moved to dismiss. They argued that the claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitation and that punitive damages could not be awarded against a deceased tortfeasor’s estate. Bryant opposed the motion and argued that New York limitation provisions and equitable doctrines allowed the case to proceed.

No judge resolved those disputes. Proceedings were stayed while Bryant participated in the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program. On October 15, 2020, the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after she accepted an offer of compensation. The public stipulation does not disclose the amount or other terms.

Survivor Reading Note

This article discusses allegations of rape, sexual assault, coercion, intimidation, eating disorders, substance abuse, panic attacks, and anxiety.

The released EFTA copies redact the plaintiff’s name from the complaint caption and many passages. A January 29, 2020 filing by her lawyers, however, quotes paragraph 44 of the complaint using the name “Juliette.” The identification of the plaintiff as Juliette Rose Bryant is therefore supported within the released case record, even though the caption remains redacted.

The allegations are described as allegations because the case ended without a trial or merits judgment. That legal qualification does not diminish Bryant’s account or the documented fact that the compensation process resulted in an accepted offer.

Overview

On November 14, 2019, Bryant filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their representative capacities as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate. She did not sue them for personal misconduct in this action. The estate representatives were the named defendants because Epstein had died on August 10, 2019.

The complaint alleged that the abuse began in 2002, when Bryant was a 20 year old aspiring model in Cape Town, South Africa. According to the pleading, an American model approached her, presented Epstein as a well connected billionaire who could help her enter the modeling industry, and arranged for her to meet him. Bryant alleged that Epstein later asked to see her portfolio, represented that he owned a modeling agency, referred to his relationship with Leslie Wexner and Victoria’s Secret, and promised to secure a modeling agent in New York.

The pleading stated that Leslie Groff helped arrange Bryant’s visa, passport, and travel. Bryant alleged that Epstein called her mother to assure her that she would be safe. After Bryant arrived in New York, she was taken to an apartment on 66th Street and then directed to travel to the Caribbean. The complaint alleged that Epstein began touching her sexually aboard his private aircraft and repeatedly raped and assaulted her after they reached his property in the United States Virgin Islands.

Bryant alleged that what had been presented as a modeling opportunity instead became a years long pattern of sexual abuse and control. She said Epstein required her to return for trips lasting one or two weeks, sometimes housed her at his New York property, and never introduced her to a modeling agent or obtained modeling work for her.

The complaint connected Bryant’s account to a broader alleged recruitment system, but its statements about other survivors and third parties were allegations, background assertions, or quotations from other proceedings. The only claims pleaded in this case concerned Epstein’s alleged conduct toward Bryant and the estate’s legal responsibility for those claims.

Parties

Juliette Rose Bryant was the plaintiff. The released complaint describes her as a citizen and resident of a redacted country and elsewhere states that she was living in South Africa when recruited. The executors later characterized her as a South African resident. Bryant’s attorneys argued that she had a sufficient New York connection during the alleged abuse to be treated as a New York resident for purposes of the limitations analysis. That position was contested and never adjudicated.

Darren K. Indyke was sued only in his capacity as an executor of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein. The complaint alleged that he had submitted an oath of willingness to serve as executor and that the Virgin Islands probate court authorized him to administer the estate.

Richard D. Kahn was also sued only in his capacity as an executor. As with Indyke, the lawsuit sought recovery from the estate rather than a finding that Kahn personally committed the alleged assaults.

Jeffrey Epstein was the alleged tortfeasor whose conduct formed the basis of both causes of action. He was not a named defendant because he had died before the complaint was filed.

Bryant was represented by lawyers from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, including David Boies, Joshua I. Schiller, and Sigrid McCawley. The co-executors were represented by Troutman Sanders LLP, later Troutman Pepper Sanders LLP.

Allegations in the Complaint

The following points summarize Bryant’s allegations. They are not findings by the court.

In 2002, an American model approached Bryant in Cape Town and offered to introduce her to Epstein as a possible route into modeling in the United States.
The recruiter described Epstein as the “King of America” and as a billionaire with extensive connections. Bryant met him at a restaurant while he was dining with prominent people whose names were not given in the released complaint.
Epstein asked Bryant to bring her modeling portfolio to his hotel, claimed that he owned a modeling agency, and said he could obtain an agent for her in New York.
Leslie Groff allegedly contacted Bryant and helped arrange a visa, passport, and airline tickets. Epstein allegedly assured Bryant’s mother that Bryant would be safe with him.
Within approximately two weeks, Bryant traveled to New York. She alleged that she was first taken to an apartment on 66th Street and soon placed aboard Epstein’s aircraft for a trip to the Caribbean.
Bryant alleged that Epstein touched her sexually during the flight. At his Virgin Islands property, she was allegedly directed to massage him and was repeatedly raped by forcible compulsion, forced to perform oral sex, touched without consent, and subjected to sexual devices.
She alleged that she felt isolated and trapped because nobody knew where she was and because of Epstein’s power and resources.
The complaint alleged that Epstein required Bryant to travel repeatedly to his residences for one or two weeks at a time. It identified alleged assaults in New York, New Mexico, Florida, Paris, and the United States Virgin Islands.
Bryant alleged that Epstein told her he had planted drugs in another accuser’s apartment and caused that woman to be imprisoned. Bryant said she understood the story as a threat and feared harm to herself or her family.
In Paris, Bryant alleged that she stayed with Ghislaine Maxwell and was forced to pose nude for photographs intended for Epstein. This was an allegation in Bryant’s complaint and was not adjudicated in this case.
Bryant alleged that her last trip to the United States was in 2004, when she visited Zorro Ranch in New Mexico. She described a dispute with Epstein after he brought her to meet a government official and accused her of not being obedient. She then returned home and did not visit him again.
Epstein allegedly attempted to remain in contact over the following years. The complaint cited an email in 2016 about another woman and an email in June 2019 requesting nude photographs.
Bryant alleged lasting effects that included eating disorders, substance abuse, debilitating panic attacks, severe anxiety, emotional distress, humiliation, psychological trauma, and loss of dignity and self esteem.

The complaint also alleged that Epstein and associates operated a broader system of recruitment and abuse. It described offers tailored to a prospective victim’s needs, displays of wealth and connections, the normalization of sexualized surroundings, and the later use of money, promises, and threats. These broader assertions supplied context for Bryant’s theory of coercion and tolling. They were not separately tried or proven in this action.

Claims and Requested Relief

The first cause of action was battery. Bryant alleged that Epstein intentionally and repeatedly touched intimate parts of her body and sexually assaulted and raped her without consent. She alleged that the conduct occurred at his properties in New York, New Mexico, Florida, France, and the United States Virgin Islands.

The second cause of action was intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bryant alleged that the recruitment, assaults, manipulation, and threats were extreme and outrageous, and that Epstein knew or disregarded the likelihood of causing severe emotional distress.

The complaint requested compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. It also sought attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief, and demanded a jury trial.

No damages were awarded by a court. The later stipulation states only that Bryant accepted an offer from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program. It does not publish the amount, methodology, release terms, or supporting evidence submitted to the program.

Statute of Limitations Dispute

The central contested legal issue was timeliness. Because Bryant alleged conduct in several jurisdictions and resided outside New York when the action was filed, the parties disputed both the applicable limitation periods and the effect of New York’s borrowing statute.

Bryant relied first on New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 215(8)(a). That provision can give a civil plaintiff at least one year after termination of a related criminal action to sue concerning the same event or occurrence. Bryant argued that the 2019 federal prosecution of Epstein concerned the same sex trafficking scheme alleged in her complaint. The criminal case terminated on August 29, 2019, and she filed fewer than three months later.

She also relied on CPLR section 213-c, which provided a 20 year period for certain civil claims arising from conduct constituting specified sex offenses. Her lawyers argued that the complaint alleged rape within 20 years of filing and that the statute applied.

Bryant further invoked equitable estoppel and tolling. She alleged that Epstein and associates used deception, threats, intimidation, power, and continued contact to keep her silent. Her opposition argued that these fact intensive doctrines should not be rejected before discovery.

The co-executors disputed each theory. They argued that the 2019 indictment focused on trafficking minors and did not concern the alleged assaults on Bryant, who was an adult when the alleged conduct began. They argued that section 213-c did not revive claims that had already expired, that New York’s borrowing statute required application of shorter foreign limitation periods, and that the allegations did not satisfy the requirements for equitable tolling or estoppel.

These competing positions remained arguments. The court did not decide which limitation period governed, whether the 2019 criminal case arose from the same event or occurrence, whether Bryant qualified as a New York resident for this purpose, or whether tolling or estoppel applied.

Punitive Damages Dispute

The executors also asked the court to remove Bryant’s request for punitive damages. They argued that the law of the jurisdictions where the alleged torts occurred did not allow punitive damages against the representatives of a deceased wrongdoer’s estate. They relied on New York estate law, authorities from other jurisdictions, and their analysis of Virgin Islands common law.

Bryant responded that a request for punitive damages should not be disposed of as though it were a separate cause of action at the pleading stage. She argued that Virgin Islands law should govern at least part of the issue and that the Virgin Islands had not adopted a categorical bar. Her opposition emphasized deterrence and, if necessary, requested certification of the unresolved Virgin Islands law question to the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands.

In reply, the executors cited rulings in other Epstein estate cases that had rejected punitive damages claims. They maintained that the same reasoning applied here.

The court made no ruling on punitive damages in Bryant. Decisions in other cases were persuasive authorities advanced by the executors, not a judgment in this docket.

Procedural History

November 14, 2019: Bryant filed the complaint. The action was assigned to District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr.

December 26, 2019: Judge Carter referred the case to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman for general pretrial supervision and dispositive motion proceedings.

January 14, 2020: Magistrate Judge Freeman issued a coordinated case management order covering this and several other Epstein estate actions. The order expressly stated that the cases had not been consolidated or formally designated as related. Coordination was intended to make discovery and possible settlement more efficient.

January 24 and January 29, 2020: The co-executors requested permission to move to dismiss, and Bryant responded. Their letters previewed the limitations and punitive damages disputes.

February 11, 2020: Following a joint case management conference, the court set deadlines for initial disclosures, document requests, interrogatories, amendments, fact discovery, and expert discovery.

April 14, 2020: The co-executors filed their motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum. They asked the court to dismiss the two claims as time barred and to reject punitive damages.

May 12, 2020: Bryant filed her opposition. She defended her statutory and equitable timeliness theories and argued that punitive damages remained legally available.

May 21 and May 22, 2020: The docket includes a protective order governing confidential discovery material, including medical information, financial information, and information identifying alleged victims or minors.

May 26, 2020: The co-executors filed their reply in further support of dismissal.

June 12 to June 15, 2020: The parties stipulated to a 60 day stay of discovery and resolution of pending motions while Bryant pursued a claim through the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program. The stipulation anticipated dismissal with prejudice if the program resolved her claim.

June 26, 2020: According to a later status report, Bryant submitted her compensation program claim on this date.

August 14, 2020: The parties reported that Bryant was actively participating in the program and expected an eligibility or compensation determination. They requested an additional 45 day stay.

October 15, 2020: The parties filed a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). It stated that Bryant had accepted an offer of compensation from the program and dismissed the action with prejudice, with each side bearing its own fees and costs.

Because Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits dismissal by a signed stipulation of all appearing parties, the filing ended the action without a merits decision on the pending motion.

Evidence and Filing Index

The following links point directly to released EFTA document sets on Epstein Data.

Date	Filing	EFTA link	Importance
November 14, 2019	Complaint, Document 1	EFTA02731941	Principal source for Bryant’s allegations, claims, and requested relief
December 26, 2019	Order of reference, Document 8	EFTA02731970	Refers pretrial and dispositive motion matters to Magistrate Judge Freeman
January 14, 2020	Coordinated case management order, Document 11	EFTA02731975	States that the estate cases were coordinated but not consolidated or formally related
January 24, 2020	Defense pre-motion letter, Document 12	EFTA02731977	Previews the estate’s timeliness and punitive damages arguments
January 29, 2020	Plaintiff’s response, Document 13	EFTA02731981	States Bryant’s timeliness theories and includes the name “Juliette” in a quotation from the complaint
February 11, 2020	Scheduling order, Document 15	EFTA02731990	Establishes coordinated discovery deadlines
April 14, 2020	Defendants’ memorandum supporting dismissal, Document 24	EFTA02732008	Full presentation of the executors’ legal defenses
May 12, 2020	Plaintiff’s opposition, Document 33	EFTA02732143	Full response supporting timeliness and punitive damages
May 21, 2020	Protective order, Document 35	EFTA02732201	Governs confidential discovery material
May 26, 2020	Defendants’ reply supporting dismissal, Document 39	EFTA02732227	Final defense briefing on the motion to dismiss
June 12, 2020	Joint stipulation seeking stay, Document 43	EFTA02732305	Connects the litigation stay to Bryant’s participation in the compensation program
August 14, 2020	Joint status report, Document 50	EFTA02732314	Reports that Bryant submitted her claim on June 26 and remained in the program
October 15, 2020	Joint stipulation for dismissal, Document 54	EFTA02732318	Confirms acceptance of a compensation offer and dismissal with prejudice

Legal Significance

The case illustrates how claims against Epstein’s estate turned on procedural questions that were separate from the truth of a survivor’s account. The executors’ motion challenged timeliness and available remedies. It did not produce a judicial finding rejecting Bryant’s allegations.

The case also shows the relationship between the federal estate litigation and the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program. The parties paused litigation while Bryant used the program. Her acceptance of an offer led to a dismissal with prejudice, which prevents the same dismissed claims from being refiled, but the public stipulation supplies no factual findings and no public valuation of the claim.

Finally, the docket demonstrates that multiple survivor actions were managed together for scheduling and discovery without being consolidated into a single case. Each action retained its own docket, assigned district judge, allegations, defenses, and disposition.

Fact Check

Fact check date: September 10, 2026

Statement	Status	Basis
The case was filed on November 14, 2019	Verified	Complaint docket stamp
The plaintiff was Juliette Rose Bryant	Verified with source caveat	The released complaint caption is redacted, but the January 29, 2020 filing quotes complaint paragraph 44 using “Juliette”
Indyke and Kahn were sued for personal participation in the assaults	False	They were sued only in their capacities as estate co-executors
Bryant alleged abuse beginning when she was 20	Verified as an allegation	Complaint paragraphs 1, 11, and 38
The complaint alleged conduct at properties in five jurisdictions	Verified as an allegation	New York, New Mexico, Florida, France, and the United States Virgin Islands are identified in the complaint
The court ruled that Bryant’s claims were timely	Not established	The motion to dismiss was stayed and never decided
The court ruled that Bryant could recover punitive damages	Not established	The punitive damages dispute was briefed but not decided
Bryant accepted an offer from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program	Verified	October 15, 2020 joint stipulation
The settlement amount is public in the dismissal filing	False	The filing discloses no amount
The action ended with prejudice	Verified	October 15, 2020 joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
The estate cases were formally consolidated	False	The January 14, 2020 order expressly said they were not consolidated or formally designated as related

Questions Still Unanswered

What amount did the compensation program offer Bryant, and what methodology produced that amount?
What documents, testimony, travel records, communications, or corroborating materials were submitted with her program claim?
Which names and identifying details were removed from the public EFTA copies, and were unredacted versions filed under seal?
What discovery had been completed before the stay began?
How would the court have resolved the disputed limitations provisions and New York borrowing statute?
Would the court have applied New York, Virgin Islands, or another jurisdiction’s law to punitive damages?
What obligations, releases, or confidentiality provisions accompanied the compensation offer?

Limitations

This article is based principally on the EFTA copies of the federal docket filings. Redactions obscure the plaintiff’s name in the caption, portions of her biographical information, and the identities of several people mentioned in the allegations.

The complaint records Bryant’s allegations, not adjudicated facts. The defense memoranda record the co-executors’ legal arguments, not rulings. The parties’ compensation program resolution ended the case before the court evaluated the allegations, timeliness defenses, punitive damages dispute, or evidentiary record.

The public dismissal stipulation does not disclose the payment amount or complete settlement terms. The compensation program’s confidential materials are not part of the released filing set reviewed for this article.

No docket specific article from the established EpsteinWiki sleuth Substack sources was located during preparation of this page. None is included merely to fill a source category.

Related EpsteinWiki Pages

Sources

Complaint, EFTA02731941, filed November 14, 2019.
Order of Reference, EFTA02731970, filed December 26, 2019.
Coordinated Case Management Order, EFTA02731975, filed January 14, 2020.
Defendants’ Pre-Motion Letter, EFTA02731977, filed January 24, 2020.
Plaintiff’s Response to Pre-Motion Letter, EFTA02731981, filed January 29, 2020.
Scheduling Order, EFTA02731990, filed February 11, 2020.
Defendants’ Memorandum Supporting Motion to Dismiss, EFTA02732008, filed April 14, 2020.
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, EFTA02732143, filed May 12, 2020.
Protective Order, EFTA02732201, filed May 21, 2020.
Defendants’ Reply Supporting Motion to Dismiss, EFTA02732227, filed May 26, 2020.
Joint Stipulation Seeking Stay, EFTA02732305, filed June 12, 2020.
Joint Status Report, EFTA02732314, filed August 14, 2020.
Joint Stipulation for Dismissal, EFTA02732318, filed October 15, 2020.

PostedDecember 19, 2025