Epstein Secrets

s pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. Cf. Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on grounds

ourt where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court.'" Lea, 428 F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that "Congress `did not extend [to defendants a right of removal] with one hand, and with the o

pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. Cf. Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCRJWCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on grounds

urt where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court."' Legg, 428 F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that "Congress `did not extend [to defendants a right of removal] with one hand, and with the o

s pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. cf Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WI_ 517847, at *1-2 (ND. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on grounds

urt where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court.'" Legg, 428 F.3d at 1325 (citing Wecker v. Nat'l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186 (1907)). See also id. (observing that "Congress 'did not extend [to defendants a right of removal] with one hand, and with the o