What is the docket number and full text of the Palm Beach County complaint alleging the $310 million trafficking scheme?

1. Background: what the reporting says the complaint alleges

Local and national outlets describe a complaint filed in Palm Beach County that accuses the named defendants of operating a trafficking venture the plaintiff calls “identical in every material respect” to Jeffrey Epstein’s operation, and claims the alleged enterprise escalated into a coordinated eight‑year trafficking and exploitation scheme beginning in 2018 ^{[1] [5]}. Reporting notes the lead plaintiff’s identity is redacted in the court copy circulating in the media and that the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, according to one outlet that reviewed the filing ^{[1] [4]}.

2. What the complaint reportedly seeks and alleges in summary form

Coverage states the plaintiffs are seeking at least $310 million in compensatory damages, more than $134 million in attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief including “immediate return of full legal and physical custody” of the lead plaintiff’s daughter, along with other remedies such as limits on defendants’ use of certain technologies, according to summarized excerpts published by multiple outlets ^{[2] [3] [6]}. Reports also describe dramatic allegations contained in the filing, including purported attempts on the lead plaintiff’s life and broad claims of coordinated assaults and cover‑ups, but these are presented as assertions from the complaint rather than independently verified facts ^{[2] [1]}.

3. The publication footprint and provenance of the circulated filing

The story appears to have propagated from local outlets and aggregation sites; several summaries rely on an “uncertified copy” or media reproductions of the filing rather than a court‑issued, certified document, and some coverage emphasizes the complaint’s length—reported as 149 pages—while noting many plaintiff details are redacted ^{[1] [4]}. Outlets differ in tone and sourcing—some present the filing’s claims verbatim and others frame the piece as breaking but unverified news—underscoring variation in editorial approach across the reporting corpus ^{[5] [3]}.

4. Docket number: not found in the supplied reporting

None of the provided sources supply the Palm Beach County Circuit Court docket number for the November 24 filing; the pieces summarize allegations, length, parties and relief sought but do not reproduce an official case number or link to an official court docket entry ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Because those identifiers are not in the reporting set, the specific docket number cannot be confirmed from these sources.

5. Full text of the complaint: not available in the provided material

The supplied articles and summaries reference and excerpt parts of what they describe as the complaint, but none include the complete, certified complaint text or a public‑court link to the full filing; several explicitly note media saw an uncertified or redacted copy rather than an official transcript of the complaint ^{[1] [4]}. Therefore, the full text as filed with the Palm Beach County clerk is not available within the materials provided.

6. How to confirm the docket number and obtain the full complaint (context and next steps)

To ascertain the docket number and access the complete complaint, standard practice would be to consult the Palm Beach County Clerk & Comptroller’s official online records or visit the clerk’s office for certified filings, or to check PACER for any federal filings if removed—none of the supplied sources, however, link to those government records or show the formal docket identifier, so those steps are recommended but cannot be validated here from the existing reporting ^[1]. The reportage indicates a high level of public interest and expansive claims, but the absence of an official docket number and the full complaint text in the provided sources means confirmation requires consulting court records directly ^{[1] [4]}.