Giuffre, also known as Virginia Roberts, alleges the Duke of York sexually assaulted her in three different locations between 2000 and 2002 while she was a teenager.
The duke submitted 11 reasons why the case should be dismissed, including that Giuffreâ€™s claims are â€œbarred by the doctrine of consentâ€ and by â€œher own wrongful conductâ€.
In the court document which communicated his reasons for requesting a dismissal of the case, Andrewâ€™s lawyers concluded: â€œPrince Andrew hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted in the Complaint.â€
David Boies, who is representing Giuffre in her lawsuit against Andrew, said his client and legal team were anticipating â€œconfrontingâ€ the royal about his â€œdenialsâ€.
In Giuffreâ€™s allegations, she accuses Andrew of sexually abusing her at the London home of disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, at paedophile financier Jeffrey Epsteinâ€™s New York mansion and Epsteinâ€™s private island, Little St James.
Judge Lewis A Kaplan previously denied the dukeâ€™s application to dismiss the case.
The judgeâ€™s decision was a huge blow for Andrew, whose lawyer argued earlier this month the case should be thrown out as Giuffre had waived her right to pursue the duke by signing a confidential settlement with disgraced financier Epstein.
Outlining his reasons for denying the motion, Judge Kaplan said the court was not able at this stage to consider the dukeâ€™s efforts to cast doubt on Giuffreâ€™s claims or whether he was covered by the settlement agreement, suggesting these were issues for a trial.
He said: â€œThe 2009 agreement cannot be said to demonstrate, clearly and unambiguously, the parties intended the instrument â€˜directlyâ€™, â€˜primarilyâ€™, or â€˜substantiallyâ€™, to benefit Prince Andrew.â€
The latest court document, which details all 11 reasons why the dukeâ€™s lawyers believed the case should be dismissed, reiterated the position on the 2009 agreement which was that Giuffre â€œwaived the claims now asserted in the complaintâ€.
Another factor the dukeâ€™s legal team asked the court to consider was the issue of consent.
The document reads: â€œAssuming, without admitting, that Giuffre has suffered any injury or damage alleged in the complaint, Giuffreâ€™s claims are barred by the doctrine of consent.â€
The duke also claimed the case should be â€œbarred in whole or in part by her own wrongful conductâ€.
Andrewâ€™s lawyers also asserted that Giuffre should not be able to proceed because her claim for damages is â€œtoo speculative to be recovered at lawâ€.
This appears to show the duke claiming Giuffreâ€™s claims cannot be proved with reasonable certainty, which would leave jurors speculating as to the actual damages suffered.
Andrewâ€™s lawyers also stated that Giuffreâ€™s claims â€œfail to state facts sufficient to constitute viable causes of action against Prince Andrewâ€.
The document also argues that the claims should be dismissed because Giuffre is a permanent resident of Australia.
In a statement, Boies said: â€œPrince Andrewâ€™s answer continues his approach of denying any knowledge or information concerning the claims against him, and purporting to blame the victim of the abuse for somehow bringing it on herself.
â€œWe look forward to confronting Prince Andrew with his denials and attempts to blame Ms Giuffre for her own abuse at his deposition and at trial.â€
Criticism of the duke is mounting after the Queen stripped him of his remaining patronages and honorary military roles as the monarchy distanced itself from the duke ahead of potentially damaging developments in his lawsuit.
Andrew has strenuously denied all allegations.