Epstein Secrets

fically "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 [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,

of removal, a federal court will "determine the matter of jurisdiction" by examining "the true situation both as to parties and causes of action." Bernblum v. Travelers' Inc. Co., 9 F. Supp. 34, 35 (W.D. Mo. 1934) (emphasis added). See also id. (observing that "[t]he federal courts will . . . strike out the fiction injected

fically "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 [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,

of removal, a federal court will "determine the matter of jurisdiction" by examining "the true situation both as to parties and causes of action." Bernblum v. Travelers' Inc. Co., 9 F. Supp. 34, 35 (W.D. Mo. 1934) (emphasis added). See also id. (observing that "[t]he federal courts will . . . strike out the fiction injected

fically "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 [of removal] granted to In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661

t of removal, a federal court will "determine the matter of jurisdiction" by examining "the true situation both as to panics and causes of action." Bernblum v. Travelers' Inc. Co., 9 F. Supp. 34, 35 ( W.D. Mo. 1934) (emphasis added). See also id. (observing that "[t]he federal courts will . . . strike out the fiction injected