Epstein Secrets

e on its face."). As a general matter, I am loath to assume that the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal Rules. Swierkiewicz I Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002) ("A requirement of greater specificity for particular claims is a result that must be obtained by the process of

rp. I. 5 EFTA00222022 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 6 of 12 Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. • Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not require a plaintiff to plead with particularity

e on its face."). As a general matter, I am loath to assume that the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal Rules. Swierkiewicz I Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002) ("A requirement of greater specificity for particular claims is a result that must be obtained by the process of

rp. I. 5 EFTA00222486 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 6 of 12 Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. • Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not require a plaintiff to plead with particularity

ot contain enough information to allow a responsive pleading to be framed, the proper motion to be filed is a motion for a more definite statement. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Sisk v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dep't 644 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5' Cir. 1981)) Courts typically grant motions

wierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not require a plaintiff to plead with particularit

ot contain enough information to allow a responsive pleading to be framed, the proper motion to be filed is a motion for a more definite statement. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Sisk v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dep't 644 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5' Cir. 1981)) Courts typically grant motions

wierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not require a plaintiff to plead with particularit