Epstein Secrets

(Fla. 1950) (observing that "'instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort are rare and should be added to with caution" (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d 609, 611, (Mass. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, this case involves the general rule, not the narrow exception, because only one pers

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 [

(Fla. 1950) (observing that 'instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort are rare and should be added to with caution' (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d 609, 611, (Mass. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, this case involves the general rule, not the narrow exception, because only one pers

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

(Fla. 1950) (observing that "'instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort are rare and should be added to with caution" (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d 609, 611, (Mass. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, this case involves the general rule, not the narrow exception, because only one pers

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 [

(Fla. 1950) (observing that -'instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort are rare and should be added to with caution' (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d 609, 611, (Mails. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, th;s Cat ;nvulvcs dic genera-rule, not the narrow exception, because only one perso

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 [