Epstein Secrets

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

sake of the defendant, but because [the courts] will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff" (quoting Holman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120)) (emphasis added); Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Harris, J., concurring) (remarking in the context of an action brought against an alleged prostitution

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

sake of the defendant, but because [the courts] will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff" (quoting Holman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120)) (emphasis added); Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Harris, J., concurring) (remarking in the context of an action brought against an alleged prostitution

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

sake of the defendant, but because [the courts] will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff" (quoting Holman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120)) (emphasis added); Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Harris, J., concurring) (remarking in the context of an action brought against an alleged prostitution

'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

sake of the defendant, but because [the courts] will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff" (quoting Holman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120)) (emphasis added); Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Harris, J., concurring) (remarking in the context of an action brought against an alleged prostitution