Court records
- Format
- Set
- Court Records
- Text
- Searchable
Text as released
Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2008 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE, a/k/a
JANE DOE NO. 1,
vs.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
HALEY ROBSON, and
SARAH KELLEN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
OPPOSITION TO REMAND MOTION
Because this case was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), remand is
unwarranted. In response to plaintiffs motion under § 1447(c) for remand and attorneys' fees,
defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen respectfully state as follows:
Introduction
The plaintiff suggests she is insulated from any fraudulent-joinder challenge so long as
she has "at least a possibility" of "recover[ing] against Defendant Robson under Florida law for
each of the counts in the amended complaint." (DE 11 at 5.) However superficially appealing
from a plaintiffs perspective, this argument ignores the corollary that "[t]he potential for legal
liability [under State law] 'must be reasonable, not merely theoretical."' Legg v. Wyeth, 428
F.3d 1317, 1325 n.5 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2002)) (emphasis added). See also id. at 1325
(observing that "[t]he removal process was created by Congress to protect defendants," adding
that "Congress 'did not extend such protection with one hand, and with the other give plaintiffs a
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2008 Page 2 of 14
CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
bag of tricks to overcome it.'" (quoting McKinney v. Ed. of Trustees of Maryland Cm
[…]