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

t of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [

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,

t of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [

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

t of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [