Epstein Secrets

sity jurisdiction. 2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this controversy. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of cit

t of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "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 [

sity jurisdiction. 2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this controversy. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of cit

ht of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "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

sity jurisdiction. 2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this controversy. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of cit

t of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "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 [

sity jurisdiction. 2. There is complete diversity among the real parties to this controversy. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of cit

t of removal. The removal statute was enacted specifically "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 [