Epstein Secrets

, 2013 WL 6628619 (Dec. 16, 2013) 14 Montejo v. Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc., 935 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) 13 ii EFTA00589619 Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) 17, 22 Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1996) 12 Procacci v. Zacco, 402 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th

oks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, M. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007), and correctly recognized and applied the litigation privilege. Id. This Court continued its analysis, dis

privilege. Acts committed prior to the filing of the complaint may not, in some cases, enjoy the broad protection of the privilege. For example, in Olson v. Johnson, 961 So.2d 356, 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), the court found that the litigation privilege did not protect the three women who allegedly fil

rida, both to common-law causes of action, those initiated pursuant to a statute, or of some other origin," Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 384 (Fla.2007), and reaffirmed that "ralbsolute immunity must be afforded to any act occurring during the course of a judic

, 2013 WL 6628619 (Dec. 16, 2013) 14 Montejo v. Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc., 935 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) 13 ii EFTA00714922 Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) 17, 22 Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1996) 12 Procacci v. Zacco, 402 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4t

, Mayes & Mitchell, M. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & 9 EFTA00714932 Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007), and correctly recognized and applied the litigation privilege. Id. This Court continued its analysis, dis

ently exists with regards to the 8 issue whether the litigation privilege bars a 9 malicious prosecution claim. And 2 have cited to 10 the case Olson vs. Johnson, 961 So2d. 356, the 11 Second DCA's opinion in 2007, after both Levin and 12 Echevarria. And it holds that malicious 13 prosecution

Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & 9 EFTA00613598 Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007), and correctly recognized and applied the litigation privilege. Id. This Court continued its analysis, dis

udicial proceeding, a cause of action sounding in malicious prosecution may still be viable. See Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1992); Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 356 (Ha. 2d DCA 2007). Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court judiciously pointed out in Levin that "other tortious conduct du

nd[] a lawsuit without fear of having to defend their actions in a subsequent civil action for misconduct.' Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007); see also Levin, 639 So.2d at 608 C[A]bsolute immunity must be afforded to any act occurring during the cou

ician against his patients and an expert after he successfully defended a malpractice claim. Also of significance is the Second District’s opinion in Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In that case, the court observed that the litigation (or judicial) privilege would not apply to bar a

tigation privilege applies in all causes of action, whether for common- law torts or statutory violations. See Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). Defamatory statements made by lawyer while interviewing a witness in preparation for and connected to pending li