EXCLUSIVE: Jeffrey Epstein Accusers Abruptly Drop Lawsuit Against Billionaire Leslie Wexner After Explosive Court Fight
Leslie Wexner's decades-long ties to Jeffrey Epstein have faced renewed scrutiny.
Sept. 1 2026, Published 8:19 p.m. ET
A group of Jeffrey Epstein accusers has abruptly filed to voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit against billionaire Leslie Wexner, the Wexner Foundation and a Manhattan property company following a bitter federal court battle over where the case should be heard, RadarOnline.com can exclusively reveal.
According to court documents exclusively obtained by Radar, the 11 plaintiffs filed a corrected notice of voluntary dismissal on September 1, telling the Southern District of New York they were dismissing the action without prejudice.
Wexner Fights to Keep Case Federal
Epstein's ties to Wexner became central to the lawsuit.
The women had accused Wexner of helping enable Epstein's abuse by allegedly providing the disgraced financier with hundreds of millions of dollars, sweeping control over his finances and access to the Manhattan mansion where the plaintiffs claimed Epstein sexually abused them.
Radar has previously reported extensively on Wexner's decades-long ties to Epstein, including scrutiny over the disgraced financier's relationship with the former Victoria's Secret mogul and his business empire.
The move to dismiss came after an increasingly contentious fight over whether the case should remain in federal court or return to New York state court.
The plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in New York Supreme Court in March, alleging violations of the city's Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law. Wexner and The Wexner Foundation later removed the lawsuit to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff's Residency Claim Comes Under Fire
Wexner was accused of helping enable Epstein's operation.
The women alleged Epstein sexually abused them at his 9 East 71st Street mansion in Manhattan and accused Wexner and related entities of providing money, property and infrastructure that enabled his operation.
The dispute later intensified after plaintiff Andrea Sterling claimed she had lived in Tulum, Mexico, since August 2025 — potentially affecting federal jurisdiction.
Nine East 71st Street Corporation challenged the claim in an August 31 filing, pointing to a December 2025 interview in which Sterling said: "I live in Miami."
Defense lawyers argued the statement contradicted her later affidavit claiming she had lived in Mexico since August 2025.
Defense Challenges Sterling's Residency Claims
Wexner's decades-long relationship with Epstein has faced renewed scrutiny.
Nine East's attorneys further claimed Sterling's LinkedIn, Backstage account, and a Facebook profile connected to her jewelry company continued to list her as being based in Miami.
In another eyebrow-raising detail, defense lawyers said plaintiffs' counsel emailed them on August 19 asking for evidence that disputed Sterling's claimed Tulum residency.
According to the filing, the lawyer said the plaintiffs might not pursue their second remand motion if defendants had "concrete evidence" challenging her residency.
The defense provided a link to the interview, but the plaintiffs nevertheless filed their second motion to remand two days later.
Case Abruptly Dropped
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
The plaintiffs alleged Epstein abused them at his Manhattan mansion.
Nine East asked the judge to deny the remand request or allow limited discovery into Sterling's domicile, including potential records concerning her travel, residency and finances.
Hours after the defense opposition landed on the docket, the plaintiffs submitted their first notice seeking to dismiss the case. That filing was later flagged as deficient because of a filing error before the corrected dismissal was entered on September 1.
Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, the filing does not necessarily prevent the plaintiffs from attempting to bring their claims again.
