Epstein Secrets

entical injuries Jane Doe asserted in the First Federal Action, and are no less serious simply because pled under a state-court caption. Cf., e.g., Woods v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 523 F. Supp. 2d 812, 820 (N.D. III. 2007) (determining, in the context of diversity jurisdiction, that the $75,000 threshold had been satisfied, a

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 [

entical injuries Jane Doe asserted in the First Federal Action, and are no less serious simply because pled under a state-court caption. Cf., e.g., Woods v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 523 F. Supp. 2d 812, 820 (N.D. III. 2007) (determining, in the context of diversity jurisdiction, that the $75,000 threshold had been satisfied, a

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 [

entical injuries Jane Doe asserted in the First Federal Action, and are no less serious simply because pled under a state-court caption. Cf., e.g., Woods v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 523 F. Supp. 2d 812, 820 (N.D. III. 2007) (determining, in the context of diversity jurisdiction, that the $75,000 threshold had been satisfied, a

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 [