Epstein Secrets

atutory violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc.. 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003))). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Stipp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a c

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 [

Cacown Gum, Ftos 33133 13 of 315 EFTA00180363 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 15 of 100 Buchanan v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 230 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1969) (holding that where Count I of the complaint had failed to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution, there c

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

0, (coma GOMMORIOA 33133 14 of 316 EFTA00180420 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 15 of 100 Buchanan v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 230 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1969) (holding that where Count I of the complaint had failed to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution, there c

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 [

tatutory violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003))). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Stipp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a c

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 [