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

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 [

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

ht of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (1Ith Cir. 2005). Cf, e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Stipp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right

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

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 [

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

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 [