Epstein Secrets

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN 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 wit

lez, Case No. 50 2008 DR 001141 (Palm Beach Co. Family Ct.) (1/31/08). If this turns out to be the case, there is complete diversity, regardless of Robson's citizenship. Although the Eleventh Circuit has recently indicated that a district court may not conduct jurisdictional discovery under such circu

atutory violation carries a civil remedy" (citing Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc.. 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003))). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Stipp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a c

diction. (b) There is no ossibili that the plaintiff can establish a cause of action against under Florida law. (i) The conspiracy claim against Robson must fail. As a general rule, "[a]n actionable conspiracy [under Florida law] requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong." Wright v. Yurko, 44

Cacown Gum, Ftos 33133 13 of 315 EFTA00180363 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 15 of 100 Buchanan v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 230 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1969) (holding that where Count I of the complaint had failed to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution, there c

3031340, 600:00.rt 64064, 10:0100 33133 301316 EFTA00180409 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 4 of 100 Robson, besides having nothing to do with the substantive allegations of the plaintiff's $50,000,000 case, is a community-college student with no assets w

0, (coma GOMMORIOA 33133 14 of 316 EFTA00180420 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 15 of 100 Buchanan v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 230 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1969) (holding that where Count I of the complaint had failed to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution, there c