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

ourt where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court.'" Lea, 428 F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that "Congress `did not extend [to defendants a right of removal] with one hand, and with the o

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

urt where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court."' Legg, 428 F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that "Congress `did not extend [to defendants a right of removal] with one hand, and with the o

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

urt where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court.'" Legg, 428 F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that "Congress 'did not extend [to defendants a right of removal] with one hand, and with the o