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 JANE DOE, a/Ida JANE DOE NO. 1, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, I, and 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 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 under Florida law for each of the counts in the amended complaint." (DE 11 at 5.) However superficially appealing from a plaintiff's 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. Stanley - 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 EFTA02750268