Epstein Secrets

e legal sense and more on whether they are free to act independently of each other and to advance their own separate interests); see also Kindred v. Murphy, 2008 WL 476220, *3 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (dismissing RICO claim because the allegations were insufficient to meet requirement that the RICO defendant o

ept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most 1 EFTA00728574 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/0312010 Page 2 of 10 favorable to the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). To satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal

d after the date of enactment,' " referenced in Landgraf, "unambiguously addresses the temporal reach of the statute" (citation omitted)); Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 329 n. 4, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2064 n. 4, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (recognizing from Landgraf that statutory language such as, " '[This Act

Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80469 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintif

e legal sense and more on whether they are free to act independently of each other and to advance their own separate interests)- see also Kindred v. Murphy, 2008 WL 476220, *3 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (dismissing RICO claim because the allegations were insufficient to meet requirement that the RICO defendant o

is for the claim. Id. See Ashcroft v. labal 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 2 EFTA_R1_00012687 EFTA01734467 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/0312010 Page 3 of 10 (explaining "only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss"). Rule 12(e) permits

e legal sense and more on whether they are free to act independently of each other and to advance their own separate interests)- see also Kindred v. Murphy, 2008 WL 476220, *3 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (dismissing RICO claim because the allegations were insufficient to meet requirement that the RICO defendant o

is for the claim. Id. See Ashcroft v. labal 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 2 EFTA_R1_02213295 EFTA02725752 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/0312010 Page 3 of 10 (explaining "only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss"). Rule 12(e) permits

d after the date of enactment,' " referenced in Landgraf, "unambiguously addresses the temporal reach of the statute" (citation omitted)); Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 329 n. 4, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2064 n. 4, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (recognizing from Landgraf that statutory language such as, " `[This Act

ECORD DATE March 19, 2009 FOR 0 rt E USX ONLY AMOUNT lifil6RECEIPT a 7.17(51G9te EFTA00175267 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CIV- 80469 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE II, Plaintif