Epstein Secrets

vt, kouo• 33133 5 of 316 EFTA00234229 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

s pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. Cf. Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on grounds

rt, f tomm 33113 Sol 316 EFTA00180359 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w 'hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent fro

pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. Cf. Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCRJWCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on grounds

GEM% FM1:433133 I of 311 EFTA00180412 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "Ewlhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

s pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. Cf. Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on grounds

Gam, rims33133 9 a/ 31$ EFTA00231018 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[wjhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

s pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. cf Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WI_ 517847, at *1-2 (ND. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on grounds

iovt. NOM* 33133 Go1316 EFTA00232138 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KANI Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

s pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. Cf. Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 Mat/WCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on grounds