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

atutory violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc.. 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003))). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Stipp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a c

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

Cacown Gum, Ftos 33133 13 of 315 EFTA00180363 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 15 of 100 Buchanan v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 230 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1969) (holding that where Count I of the complaint had failed to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution, there c

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

0, (coma GOMMORIOA 33133 14 of 316 EFTA00180420 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 15 of 100 Buchanan v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 230 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1969) (holding that where Count I of the complaint had failed to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution, there c

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

tatutory violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003))). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Stipp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a c

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

tatutory violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003))). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Stipp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a c