Epstein Secrets

st look like. Indeed, the Court made clear that it was not imposing a heightened pleading standard. As a general matter, I am loath to assume that the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal Rules. The Court’s “new standard” was merely a specific way to articulate a solution to

Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Michael R. Tein, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Michael Pike, Esq. [email protected] s/ Jeffrey M. Herman _ 11 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Doc

onor of having been selected by the 10 chief justice of the Florida Supremo Court to fulfill II 12 13 14 any responsibilities on behalf of the Supremo Court of Florida? A Yes. The position of chief justice rotates among the justices in the court. And at the time the IS chief justice of the Florida S

ix 13 14 13 14 17 Is Is 20 21 22 23 24 25 119 about earlier at the Critton the Borman, Critton Luttler firm, right? A Correct, and Michael Pike. 0 Do you know Michael Pike? A Yeah. Q What is Michael Pike's reputation in the community? A No is a good attorney. Q Did Michael Pike do

how narrow the circumstances under which abstention is appropriate under the Colorado River doctrine, was demonstrated in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co. 437 U.S. 655 (1979). In Will, the Supreme Court further narrowed the contours of when a federal co

ft bellsouth.net I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished VIA ECM TRANSMISSION to: Robert D. Critton, Esq. and Michael Pike, Esq., BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER & COLEMAN, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 this 12th day of June, 2009. BY:s/ Isidro M. Garcia ISIDRO M. GARCIA 19

y, denial of a Motion to Vacate Default would not be an abuse of discretion. "Given defendant's failure to present proof of a meritorious defense, [the] Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default judgment," Maines Paper, supra, 52 A.D. 3d at 1152 (citation omitted). In

FICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished VIA ECM TRANSMISSION to: Robert D. Critton, Esq. and Michael Pike, Esq., BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER & COLEMAN, Counsel for Defendant EPSTEIN, 515 N. Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 and to Bruce Reinha

how narrow the circumstances under which abstention is appropriate under the Colorado River doctrine, was demonstrated in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Will I. Calvert Fire Insurance Co. 437 U.S. 655 (1979). In Will, the Supreme Court further narrowed the contours of when a federal co

FICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished VIA ECM TRANSMISSION to: Robert D. Critton, Esq. and Michael Pike, Esq., BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER & COLEMAN, 515 N. Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 this 22nd day of May, 2009. BY:s/ Isidro M. Garci