Epstein Secrets

, 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of citizenship." (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (1 1 th Cir. 2005) (stating that

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 [

, 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of citizenship." (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (1 I th Cir. 2005) (stating that

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

, 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of citizenship." (citing Strawbridge V. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that "[

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 [

, 494 U.S. 185, 187 (1990) ("Since its enactment, we have interpreted the diversity statute to require `complete diversity' of citizenship." (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267-68 (1806))). See also MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group, LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (1 1 th Cir. 2005) (stating that

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 [