Epstein Secrets

9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Dock'e(03/12/2009 Page 4 of 21 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 4 factual allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote an

0 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). In discussing Twombly. the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11 th Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the pleading s

9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 4 of 21 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 4 factual allegations"). Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote an

0 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the pleading sp

.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232. 236. 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote an

0 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ. 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the pleading spe

.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote an

njoin the stay. And we conclude that this provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). One district court within the Eleventh Circuit, facing the identical issue with a pending state prosecution, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing] a stay in a case

478, 516-17, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2915-16, fi7 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). Oth- er executive officials are entitled to quali- fied immunity, see, e.g.. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 247-49, 94 S.Ct. 1688, 1691- 92, 40 LEd.2d 90 (1974) (state executive officials), as are prosecutorial activities that are merely a

h Cir.1970), and more • nay by the Fourth Circuit, Air Transit NLRB, 879 F2d 1101 (4th Cir.1982), Board sought to impose the same infes- tation on the Eleventh Circuit. The effort is to no avail. [24] We hold that the daily lessees are independent contractors and not employees of the Company and contrary findin

.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236. 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote an

0 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and unlikely"). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (111h Cir. 2007), noted - "The Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the pleading sp

.2d 338 (1989) ( Rule 12(b)(6) does not I countenance ... dismissals b sed on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer . Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a we -pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote and

". Defendant has not to date filed a "responsive pleading" in this case within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a). It is established in the courts of the Eleventh Circuit that a motion to dismiss is not a "responsive pleading" and does not affect a plaintiff's right to amend the pleading once as a matter of course. Wi