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

, 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of citizenship." (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (1 1 th Cir. 2005) (stating that

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

, 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of citizenship." (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (1 I th Cir. 2005) (stating that

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

, 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of citizenship." (citing Strawbridge V. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that "[

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

, 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of citizenship." (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (1 1 th Cir. 2005) (stating that

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

, 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require 'complete diversity' of citizenship." (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that "[