Epstein Secrets

CA 2014) 15 Rivernider v. Meyer, Case Number 4D14-819 10 SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) 22 Steinberg v. Steinberg, 152 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at O

osecution claim. Appellant was undoubtedly aware of the Steinberg decision, as it was Appellant's counsel who not only represented the Appellant in Steinberg, but also filed his own initial brief from the Steinberg case in the instant case as a Supplementary Submission in Support of Edwards's Motion for

) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, M., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (FIa. 3d DCA 2013) passim Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) 19, 20, 21 iii EFTA00589620 PRELIMI

appellate court. System Components v. FDOT, 14 So. 3d 967, 973 n.1 (Fla. 2009). The appellate brief upon which Edwards relies was filed in a case (Steinberg v. Steinberg) in which the trial court, much like this Court, properly followed the precedent in Wolfe. This is not, however, grounds upon which thi

raised therein were already submitted to, and properly rejected by, this Court. Moreover, the facts surrounding the malicious prosecution claim in Steinberg are readily distinguishable from the case at hand, as the malicious prosecution claim therein culminated from an underlying domestic violence actio

ng more than establish the fact that another trial court, just as this Court did in the case at hand, properly applied and followed the decision in Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). Accordingly, with no change in the law or facts since the Court's original ruling, and with Edw

CA 2014) 15 Rivernider v. Meyer, Case Number 4D14-819 10 SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) 22 Steinberg v. Steinberg, 152 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at O

osecution claim. Appellant was undoubtedly aware of the Steinberg decision, as it was Appellant's counsel who not only represented the Appellant in Steinberg, but also filed his own initial brief from the Steinberg case in the instant case as a Supplementary Submission in Support of Edwards' Motion for R

6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (FIa. 3d DCA 2013) passim Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) 19, 20, 21 iii EFTA00714923 PRELIM

CA 2014) 15 Rivernider v. Meyer, Case Number 4D14-819 10 SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) 22 Steinberg v. Steinberg, 152 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at O

osecution claim. Appellant was undoubtedly aware of the Steinberg decision, as it was Appellant's counsel who not only represented the Appellant in Steinberg, but also filed his own initial brief from the Steinberg case in the instant case as a Supplementary Submission in Support of Edwards' Motion for R

le cause issue was one for the jury. However, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Epstein based on the litigation privilege, relying on Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Accordingly, Final Judgment was entered in favor of Epstein. 2 EFTA00613502 Edwards appealed the su

eet, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. 954.467.1223 EFTA00583043 973 n.1 (Fla. 2009). The appellate brief upon which Edwards relies was filed in a case (Steinberg v. Steinberg) in which the trial court, much like this Court, properly followed the precedent in Wolfe. This is not, however, grounds upon which thi

raised therein were already submitted to, and properly rejected by, this Court. Moreover, the facts surrounding the malicious prosecution claim in Steinberg are readily distinguishable from the case at hand, as the malicious prosecution claim therein culminated from an underlying domestic violence actio

arria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the application and analysis of those cases in Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013), correctly concluded that all actions occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, so l

nance Spectroscopy: The Effect of Solvent on Magnetic Nonequivalence Arising from Molecular Asymmetry", Whitesides, G. M., Grocki, J. J., Holtz, D., Steinberg, H. and Roberts, 3. D., 1 Am. Chem. Soc, 1965, 87, 1058-1064. 7. "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: The Effect of Structure on Magnetic Non

Rod-like Oligopiperidines.", Semetey, V., Moustakas, D. & Whitesides, G. M., Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2006, 45, 588-591. 939. ", Wolfe, D. B. & Whitesides, G. M. in Nanolithography and Patterning Techniques in Microelectronics (S. Bucknall, D. G) 76-119 (Woodhead Publishing Limited

m would completely eviscerate the cause of action for malicious prosecution. However, that very same argument was flatly rejected in both Wolfe and Steinberg. The Wolfe decision, as well as the 16 EFTA00613605 Levin and Echevarria decisions, merely hold that "absolute immunity must be afforded to any

sconduct," we are obligated to conclude that the act complained of here -- the filing of the complaint — is protected by the litigation privilege. Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67, 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (emphasis added). Additionally, the Wolfe decision was recently cited with approval and relied upon