Epstein Secrets

racy claim against must fail. As a general rule, "[a]n actionable conspiracy [under Florida law] requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong." Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).1° 10 This case is governed by the general rule. Cf. Churr

Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even

o. 2d 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)). As Defendants point out, there muse be an "actionable underlying tort or wrong" for an actionable conspiracy claim. Wright, Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). 5 EFTA00234428 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08)18.2008 Page 6

back to state court if any of the properly joined parties in interest are citizens of the state in which the suit was filed. See Lincoln Prop. Co.' Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 606, 613, 163 L.Ed.2d 415 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)). Such a remand is the necessary corollary of a federal distri

ingle viable cause of action against 1. The plaintiff has not asserted a cause of action against for civil conspiracy.. The plaintiff, citing to Wright Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), concedes that "there muse [sic] be an `actionable underlying tort or wrong' for an actionable co

back to state court if any of the properly joined parties in interest are citizens of the state in which the suit was filed. See Lincoln Prop. Co.'. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 606, 613, 163 L.Ed.2d 415 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)). Such a remand is the necessary corollary of a federal distri

laim against Robson must fail. As a general rule, "[a]n actionable conspiracy [under Florida law] requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong." Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).1° 10 This case is governed by the general rule. Cf. Churr

Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even

laim against Robson must fail. As a general rule, "[a]n actionable conspiracy [under Florida law] requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong." Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).1° 10 This case is governed by the general rule. CJ: Chztr

Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even

racy claim against must fail. As a general rule, "[a]n actionable conspiracy [under Florida law] requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong." Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).10 10 This case is governed by the general rule. Cf. Churr

f Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co.'. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even

racy claim against must fail. As a general rule, "[a]n actionable conspiracy [under Florida law] requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong." Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Ha. 5th DCA 1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).1° 10 This case is governed by the general rule. CI Churruc

Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case today. Even