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

fically "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 [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,

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,

fically "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 [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,

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

fically "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 [of removal] granted to In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661