Epstein Secrets

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

Southern District of Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case to

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

Southern District of Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case to

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

Southern District of Florida. A state-court case is properly removable when "it could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court." Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). This case was originally filed in federal district court, and it is the same case to