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,

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 "[c]omplete

fically "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 [of removal] granted to 8 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 6

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 "[c]omplete

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

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 "[c]omplete