Epstein Secrets

ief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assump

7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2009 Page 4 of 9 Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8)• see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). This is a liberal pleading requirement, one that does not requi

oses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr., 460 U.S. 1 (1983). As the Eleventh Circuit explained in American Bankers Ins., 891 F.2d at 884: In Colorado River [Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976)] the Supreme Court announced that a federal court may dismiss an action because of para

and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. M.T.V. v. DeKalb County Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir.2006). 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 formulati

egation in paragraph 15 as true, Plaintiff is not proceeding exclusively under §2255. Accordingly, under the standard of pleading as established in Twombly, supra, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the requisite elements of a §2255 claim, thus requiring dismissal for failure to state a cause

comprehensive disposition of litigation, would a federal court be authorized to dismiss federal parallel' claims that are initiated in state court. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). However, for the Colorado River doctrine to even apply, there must be clear Cong

ey v. Gibson 355 U.S. at 47. For a claim to state a cause of action however, facts, not labels and conclusions must be asserted. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007) II. ARGUMENT Point 1. Plaintiff has every right to proceed in State court for a Florida common law claim, and in this Court

purely federal issues in this case because there is an independent action under State law is absurd. For this argument the Defendant relies on the Colorado River abstention doctrine, clearly inapplicable to this case. Only in "exceptional" circumstances, to promote conservation of judicial resources and comp