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

16 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2013) 2, 10, 18, 19 Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) passim Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (FIa. 1992) 13, 17, 22 Graham-Eckes Palm Beach Academy v. Johnson, 573 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) 21 Jackson v. Attorney's

ion is reviewable on appeal' and the availability of other remedies through which the trial court could mitigate the harm. . ." Id. at 1215 (citing Fridovich, 598 So. 2d at 69). Accordingly, the DelMonico decision affirmatively recognized a litigation privilege where, as in the instant case, there is jud

njoys the same immunity. We agree." Id. at 427. Appellant's reliance on Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1992) is also erroneous, as in Fridovich the Florida Supreme Court specifically concluded that only a qualified privilege is applicable when private individuals voluntarily make defamatory

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

ion is reviewable on appeal' and the availability of other remedies through which the trial court could mitigate the harm. . ." Id. at 1215 (citing Fridovich, 598 So. 2d at 69). Accordingly, the DelMonico decision affirmatively recognized a litigation privilege where, as in the instant case, there is jud

116 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2013) 2, 10, 18, 19 Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barren & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) passim Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (FIa. 1992) 13, 17, 22 Graham-Eckes Palm Beach Academy v. Johnson, 573 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) 21 Jackson v. Attorney's

njoys the same immunity. We agree." Id. at 427. Appellant's reliance on Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1992) is also erroneous, as in Fridovich the Florida Supreme Court specifically concluded that only a qualified privilege is applicable when private individuals voluntarily make defamatory

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

accusing Olson of stalking. And 8 the court distinguished that claim privilege from 9 a defamation case that was addressed in a case 10 called Fridovich vs. Fridovich, 598 So2d. 65, 11 Florida Supreme Court case 1992, in which the 12 Supreme Court was presented with a certified 13 question of wh

n of stalking. And 8 the court distinguished that claim privilege from 9 a defamation case that was addressed in a case 10 called Fridovich vs. Fridovich, 598 So2d. 65, 11 Florida Supreme Court case 1992, in which the 12 Supreme Court was presented with a certified 13 question of whether a person

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

d 1054, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). See also Montejo v. Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc., 935 So. 2d 1266, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (Ha. 1992) (stating that the litigation privilege "arises immediately upon the doing of any act required or permitted by law in the

ion is reviewable on appeal' and the availability of other remedies through which the trial court could mitigate the harm. . ." Id. at 1215 (citing Fridovich, 598 So. 2d at 69). Accordingly, the DelMonico decision affirmatively recognized a litigation privilege where, as in the instant case, there is jud

njoys the same immunity. We agree." Id. at 427. Appellant's reliance on Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1992) is also erroneous, as in Fridovich the Florida Supreme Court specifically concluded that only a qualified privilege is applicable when private individuals voluntarily make defamatory