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

fically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,

'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

fically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (1Ith Cir. 2005). Cf, e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Stipp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 6

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

fically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,

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

fically "to protect defendants." Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Cf., e.g., Picquet v. Amoco Prod. Co., 513 F. Supp. 938, 941 (M.D. La. 1981) (explaining that courts developed the fraudulent-joinder doctrine to protect "the right [of removal] granted to In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661