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

ed directly to the litigation. Under well-established Florida Supreme Court precedent, the litigation privilege applies to all causes of action. See Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, M. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.

ct occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, 639 So. 2d at 608. In Echevarria, the Court reiterated its broad application of privilege "applies in all causes of action, statutory as well as common law." Echevarria, 950 So. 2d

submits that the trial court's Order granting his Motion for Summary Judgment was proper, as the binding decisions by the Florida Supreme Court in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) and Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, M. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 S

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

ct occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, 639 So. 2d at 608. In Echevarria, the Court reiterated its broad application of privilege "applies in all causes of action, statutory as well as common law." Echevarria, 950 So. 2d

ed directly to the litigation. Under well-established Florida Supreme Court precedent, the litigation privilege applies to all causes of action. See Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell,.. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2

submits that the trial court's Order granting his Motion for Summary Judgment was proper, as the binding decisions by the Florida Supreme Court in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barren & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) and Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell,.. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.

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

MR. BREWER: So let's get into the Wolfe case. That's where we're headed next. And really there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. All of them deal with litigation privilege which dates back to 191

•• "THE COURT: This deals with the litigation privilege?" The attorney then goes on to say, "Yes, sir, it does deal with litigation privilege. Echevarria also deals with the litigation privilege. Delmonico stands for the proposition that the issues with regard to privilege are some issues of law for

submits that the trial court's Order granting his Motion for Summary Judgment was proper, as the binding decisions by the Florida Supreme Court in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) and Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639

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

King, anything that% being 10 alleged here that goes outside of the broad II spectrum that I have read into the record that has 12 its genesis in Echevarria and was quoted by the 13 Wolfe Third District Court of Appeal opinion? 14 MR. KING: There's nothing alleged. 15 Mr. Edwards' testimony, though, wa

da Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, 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

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

to allow a party to `prosecut[e] or defend[] 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 afforde

OURT: Mr. King, anything that's being alleged here that goes outside of the broad spectrum that I have read into the record that has its genesis in Echevarria and was quoted by the Wolfe Third District Court of Appeal opinion? MR. KING: There's nothing alleged. (T. 53-54). Accordingly, as explicitly stat

requests this Court to infer about Wright as a result of its citation in Levin, the Florida Supreme Court subsequently made it abundantly clear in Echevarria that "the nature of the underlying dispute simply does not matter," and mandated that the litigation privilege be broadly applied "across the board

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

da Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, 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

King, anything that's being 10 alleged here that goes outside of the broad 11 spectrum that I have read into the record that has 12 its genesis in Echevarria and was quoted by the 13 Wolfe Third District Court of Appeal opinion? 14 MR. KING: There's nothing alleged. 15 Mr. Edwards' testimony, though, wa

Subject: Epstein v. Edwards Date: Mon. Jun 16, 2014 4:06 pm Chet -- I have reviewed what you sent me with your letter of June 4, 2014. However, the Steinberg v, Steinberg Initial Brief was not included and I did not actually get my hands on it from your assistant until Friday, June 13th. Obviously that b

vilege to a malicious prosecution case. Burlington has cited numerous cases in his Steinberg brief but he does not really cite or discuss Levin and Echevarria. The Wolf case which he is trying to reverse relies on Levin and Echevarria and Burlington does not really address them. The trial judge said he rea

has no choice. I would be happy to discuss it further and I think my job would be to remind the Fourth District that their decision got reversed in Echevarria. Let me know if you want to talk about it on the phone or what you want to do next. Sincerely, John Beranek 6/16/2014 EFTA00613878