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

o be framed, the proper motion to be filed is a motion for a more definite statement. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Sisk v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dep't, 644 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5'h Cir. 1981).' Courts typically grant motions under Rule 12(e) for "shotgun" pleadings, in which it is "

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

o be framed, the proper motion to be filed is a motion for a more definite statement. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Sisk v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dep't 644 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5' Cir. 1981)) Courts typically grant motions under Rule I 2(e) for "shotgun" pleadings, in which it is "vi

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

o be framed, the proper motion to be filed is a motion for a more definite statement. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Sisk v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dep't 644 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5' Cir. 1981)) Courts typically grant motions under Rule I 2(e) for "shotgun" pleadings, in which it is "vi