Epstein Secrets

r Florida, he is, in fact, a citizen of the U.S. Virgin Islands. (Epstein All. Ex. A.)4 (c) Contrary to the allegations in the Complaint, Defendant Sarah Kellen is a citizen of New York, not Florida. (Kellen Stmt. Ex. B.) 4. This Notice satisfies the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. First, in

the allegations in the Complaint, Defendant Sarah Kellen is a citizen of New York, not Florida. (Kellen S

pain and suffering, psychic trauma, and a loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life." (Compl. ¶ 9.) These are serious allegations. 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

THERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE #1, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, HALEY ROBSON, and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. NOTICE OF REMOVAL July 18, 2008 STEVEN M. LARIMORF CLERK D.S. DIST. CT. S.O. OF FLA. • MIAMI In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441

stroy diversity jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court 2 2 Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. ¶ 5), and is therefore a nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 3 Section

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

y jurisdiction, and to prevent any application of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k), a mandatory stay provision applicable in federal court .3 Haley 2 Defendant Kellen is a citizen of New York (Am. Compl. ¶ 5), and is therefore a nonresident defendant for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and removal. 3 Section

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