Epstein Secrets

03 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hornbook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity . . . ."); Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist, 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[A] party to a contract is necessary, and if not susceptible to joinder, indi

tion Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA00100341 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document

.3d 253. 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hornbook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Din., 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[A] party to a contract is necessary. and if not susceptible to joinder, indi

tion Agreement - such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See. e.g., Casale v. Tillman. 558 F.3d 1258. 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell. 80 F.3d 464. 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA00205157 contract."); Lomayaktewa v. Hat

3, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hombook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity ...."); Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist, 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) (IA] party to a contract is necessary, and if not susceptible to joinder, indis

tion Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA00208798 contract."); Lomayakteiva v. Ha

3, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hombook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity ...."); Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist, 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) (IA] party to a contract is necessary, and if not susceptible to joinder, indis

tion Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA00795154 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document

3, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hombook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity ...."); Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist, 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) (IA] party to a contract is necessary, and if not susceptible to joinder, indis

tion Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA00799478 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document

303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hornbook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity . ..."); Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist, 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[A] party to a contract is necessary, and if not susceptible to joinder, indi

tion Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA00076103 Case 9:08-c‘080a3fi-19401-00taG

303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hornbook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity . ..."); Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist, 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[A] party to a contract is necessary, and if not susceptible to joinder, indi

tion Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA00095906 Case 9:08-c‘080a3fi-19401-00taG