Epstein Secrets

224 (3d Cir. 2007). 8. Petrol LTD v. Radulovic, 764 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). DIRECT INJURIES MUST BE SUSTAINED TO PROPERLY ALLEGE RICO 1. O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc. 599 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d (DCA 1992). 2. Palmus Y Bambu, S.A. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, 881 So.2d 565 (Fl

. STAT. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS, FOR MORE DEFINITE STAEMENT, AND TO STRIKE DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So.2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005) 2. Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ferre, 636 F.Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) 3. Mantooth v. Rich

224 (3d Cir. 2007). 8. Petrol LTD v. Radulovic, 764 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). DIRECT INJURIES MUST BE SUSTAINED TO PROPERLY ALLEGE RICO 1. O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc. 599 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d (DCA 1992). 2. Palmus Y Bambu, S.A. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, 881 So.2d 565 (Fl

. STAT. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS, FOR MORE DEFINITE STAEMENT, AND TO STRIKE DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So.2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005) 2. Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ferre, 636 F.Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) 3. Mantooth v. Rich

indirect injuries, that is injuries sustained not as a direct result of predicate acts . . . will not allow recovery under Florida RICO."' (quoting O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 599 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))) (emphasis added). Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the direct-in

or "violation of Chapter 800, Florida Statutes" (Am. Compl. ¶ 18) because there is no private right of action under that Chapter. See generally Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005) (observing that "not every statutory violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazon v

indirect injuries, that is injuries sustained not as a direct result of predicate acts . . . will not allow recovery under Florida RICO."' (quoting O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 599 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))) (emphasis added). Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the direct-in

or "violation of Chapter 800, Florida Statutes" (Am. Compl. ¶ 18) because there is no private right of action under that Chapter. See generally Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005) (observing that "not every statutory violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazon v

indirect injuries, that is injuries sustained not as a direct result of predicate acts . . . will not allow recovery under Florida RICO."' (quoting O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 599 M. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))) (emphasis added). Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the direct-inj

or "violation of Chapter 800, Florida Statutes" (Am. Compl. ¶ 18) because there is no private right of action under that Chapter. See generally Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005) (observing that "not every statutory violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazon v

'indirect injuries, that is injuries sustained not as a direct result of predicate acts . . wit! not allow recovery under Florida RICO."' (quoting O'Malley v. St. Univ., Inc., 599 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992))) (emphasis added). Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the direct-injury

or "violation of Chapter 800, Florida Statutes" (Am. Compl. ¶ 18) because there is no private right of action under that Chapter. See generally Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005) (observing that "not every statutory violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazon v