Epstein Secrets

401305, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 11, 2008) (emphasizing that "ItJhe potential for legal liability must be reasonable, not merely theoretical" (quoting Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 n.5 (11th Cir. 2005))) (emphasis added). In this case, the plaintiffs have tried to whip Jane Doe's original, one- defendant 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 [

1305, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Feb. I I, 2008) (emphasizing that "`[t]he potential for legal liability must be reasonable, not merely theoretical" (quoting Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 n.5 (11th Cir. 2005))) (emphasis added). In this case, the plaintiffs have tried to whip Jane Doe's original, one- defendant 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 [

401305, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 11, 2008) (emphasizing that "'Nile potential for legal liability must be reasonable, not merely theoretical" (quoting Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1325 n.5 (11th Cir. 2005))) (emphasis added). In this case, the plaintiffs have tried to whip Jane Doe's original, one- defendant 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 [