Epstein Secrets

ee Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and MB one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defendants

sity jurisdiction. 2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this controversy. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of cit

ee Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: a, Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and MIS, one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defe

sity jurisdiction. 2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this controversy. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of cit

ee Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: Mr= Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and MI one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defend

sity jurisdiction. 2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this controversy. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of cit

ee Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and , one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defendants

sity jurisdiction. 2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this controversy. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of cit

e Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refilled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defendants ha

sity jurisdiction. 2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this controversy. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require 'complete diversity' of cit