Epstein Secrets

er the circumstances alleged in the complaint." Florence v. Crescent Res., LLC, 484 F.3d 1293, 1299 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). See also, Holloway v. Morrow, No. 07-0839-WS-M, 2008 WL 401305, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 11, 2008) (emphasizing that "ItJhe potential for legal liability must be reasonab

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 [

er the circumstances alleged in the complaint." Florence v. Crescent Res., LLC, 484 F.3d 1293, 1299 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). See also, Holloway v. Morrow, No. 07-0839-WS-M, 2008 WL 401305, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Feb. I I, 2008) (emphasizing that "`[t]he potential for legal liability must be reason

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 [

er the circumstances alleged in the complaint." Florence v. Crescent Res., LLC, 484 F.3d 1293, 1299 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). See also, Holloway v. Morrow, No. 07-0839-WS-M, 2008 WL 401305, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 11, 2008) (emphasizing that "'Nile potential for legal liability must be reasonab

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 [