Epstein Secrets

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

efendant lawsuit, removal is timely when effected within 30 days after the last defendant is served. See Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. RX Solutions, United Health Group, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-330-Or1-311CRS, 2008 WL 1744794, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2008) (concluding that removal petition was timely where it was filed withi

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

efendant lawsuit, removal is timely when effected within 30 days after the last defendant is served. See Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. RX Solutions, United Health Group, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-330-Orl-31KRS, 2008 WL 1744794, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2008) (concluding that removal petition was timely where it was filed within

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

efendant lawsuit, removal is timely when effected within 30 days after the last defendant is served. See Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. RX Solutions, United Health Group, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-330-Or1-31KRS, 2008 WL 1744794, at *3 (M.D. Ha. Apr. 11, 2008) (concluding that removal petition was timely where it was filed within

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

efendant lawsuit, removal is timely when effected within 30 days after the last defendant is served. See Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. RX Solutions, United Health Group, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-330-Or1-31KRS, 2008 WL 1744794, at *3 (M.D. Ha. Apr. 11, 2008) (concluding that removal petition was timely where it was filed within