Epstein Abuse Claimants Withdraw Wexner Foundation Suit Without Prejudice After Federal Venue Fight

Eleven Jeffrey Epstein survivors have withdrawn their lawsuit against Leslie Wexner, the Wexner Foundation and Nine East 71st Street Corporation without prejudice, after a dispute over federal jurisdiction.

According to the latest court filing, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice on 1 September in the Southern District of New York. The step leaves the claims unadjudicated and does not, on its face, bar a later fresh action.

From State Court to Manhattan Federal Docket

The complaint was filed in New York Supreme Court on 6 March under the city's Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act, naming Wexner, the foundation and the company that once held title to the East 71st Street townhouse later linked to Epstein.

Wexner and the foundation removed the case to federal court on 30 March, citing diversity jurisdiction. Judge John G. Koeltl took the matter.

A separate action involving two additional plaintiffs was later consolidated with the case, bringing the combined total to 13. Counsel for Nine East told the court in April that the company had been dissolved for more than a decade and fully wound down.

Wexner's lawyers questioned personal jurisdiction over their Ohio-based client. Koeltl declined to hear a dismissal motion until he ruled on remand.

Epstein Survivors Withdraw Wexner Foundation Suit After Remand Clash

The venue fight turned on whether complete diversity existed. Plaintiffs pressed to send the case back to state court.

The dispute sharpened around plaintiff Andrea Sterling, who claimed residence in Tulum, Mexico, from August 2025, a change in domicile that could affect whether the federal court had diversity jurisdiction.

Defence lawyers disputed Sterling's claimed Tulum residence, pointing to social-media and professional profiles that they said continued to list Miami as her residence.

Plaintiffs' counsel asked on 19 August for concrete evidence challenging the Tulum claim. They filed a second remand motion two days after receiving a link to the interview.

On 31 August Nine East opposed remand and sought limited discovery into Sterling's domicile. Hours later the plaintiffs lodged a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). A corrected version followed on 1 September.

Allegations, Denials and an Open Filing Window

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Wexner enabled Epstein's abuse through financial support, control over finances and access to the Manhattan mansion.

The House Oversight Committee has estimatedthat Epstein obtained about $200 million (£148.1 million) from Wexner's finances over more than 15 years they worked together.

A 2020 foundation review said it found no evidence he used that role to commit assaults.

A Wexner spokesperson said: 'The complaint, however, fails to state any factual basis for asserting a claim against Mr. Wexner.'

The same statement said he paid Epstein for wealth management services, sold the house years before the alleged abuse, and had no knowledge of Epstein's wrongdoing. Wexner has not been charged.

An amendment to New York City's law has created a filing window that, according to the article's legal sources, runs through July 2027. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the plaintiffs may be able to pursue the claims again, subject to applicable jurisdictional, venue and limitation requirements.