Epstein Secrets

ept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most 1 EFTA00728574 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/0312010 Page 2 of 10 favorable to the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). To satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal

ourt have required proof of a RICO "enterprise" that is separate and distinct from the person charged with the RICO violation. See United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981); Gross v. State, 765 So.2d 39, 43 (Fla. 2000) (adopting Turkette as a matter of Florida RICO law). "The distinction betwe

is for the claim. Id. See Ashcroft v. labal 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 2 EFTA_R1_00012687 EFTA01734467 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/0312010 Page 3 of 10 (explaining "only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss"). Rule 12(e) permits

ourt have required proof of a RICO "enterprise" that is separate and distinct from the person charged with the RICO violation. See United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981); Gross v. State, 765 So.2d 39, 43 (Fla. 2000) (adopting Turkette as a matter of Florida RICO law). "The distinction betwe

is for the claim. Id. See Ashcroft v. labal 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 2 EFTA_R1_02213295 EFTA02725752 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/0312010 Page 3 of 10 (explaining "only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss"). Rule 12(e) permits

ourt have required proof of a RICO "enterprise" that is separate and distinct from the person charged with the RICO violation. See United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981); Gross v. State, 765 So.2d 39, 43 (Fla. 2000) (adopting Turkette as a matter of Florida RICO law). "The distinction betwe