Epstein Secrets

hasis added). In this case, the plaintiffs have tried to whip Jane Doe's original, one- defendant complaint into a froth that looks non-federal. Cf. Owens v. Swan, 962 F. Supp. 1436, 1439 (D. Utah 1997) (noting that "although plaintiffs' amended 12 Levyk:Ctin M. 3059 GweAvanur,SUOTE 340, Coormul Glo

indirect injuries, that is injuries sustained not as a direct result of predicate acts . . . will not allow recovery under Florida RICO."' (quoting O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 599 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))) (emphasis added). Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the direct-in

hasis added). In this case, the plaintiffs have tried to whip Jane Doe's original, one- defendant complaint into a froth that looks non-federal. Cf. Owens v. Swan, 962 F. Supp. 1436, 1439 (D. Utah 1997) (noting that "although plaintiffs' amended 12 Lewis.Teinii. 3039Gamy Avinim, Sun 340, COCOMUIGNOW,

indirect injuries, that is injuries sustained not as a direct result of predicate acts . . . will not allow recovery under Florida RICO."' (quoting O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 599 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))) (emphasis added). Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the direct-in

hasis added). In this case, the plaintiffs have tried to whip Jane Doe's original, one- defendant complaint into a froth that looks non-federal. Cf. Owens v. Swan, 962 F. Supp. 1436, 1439 (D. Utah 1997) (noting that "although plaintiffs' amended 12 1...evfitACCFin N. 3059 Gumo Ave nue n 340, Cocewi

indirect injuries, that is injuries sustained not as a direct result of predicate acts . . . will not allow recovery under Florida RICO."' (quoting O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 599 M. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))) (emphasis added). Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the direct-inj

hasis added). In this case, the plaintiffs have tried to whip Jane Doe's original, one- defendant complaint into a froth that looks non-federal. Cf. Owens v. Swan, 962 F. Supp. 1436, 1439 (D. Utah 1997) (noting that "although plaintiffs' amended 12 n 3059 MIAS° Amkut.$44ti 340. CoccoanGtovi,40444343

'indirect injuries, that is injuries sustained not as a direct result of predicate acts . . wit! not allow recovery under Florida RICO."' (quoting O'Malley v. St. Univ., Inc., 599 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))) (emphasis added). Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the direct-injury