Epstein Secrets

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

action against Epstein. The Court, in applying the Florida 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

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

4th DCA 2014) 2 LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (FIa. 3d DCA 2011) 3 Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) passim McCullough v. Kubiak, 4D13-4048 (Feb. 18, 2015) 9, 10 Microbilt Corporation v. Chex Systems, Inc., 2013 WL

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

action against Epstein. The Court, in applying the Florida 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

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

or such as the alleged misconduct at issue, so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). As a result, if a party seeks to bring a cause of action involving acts that neither occurred during, nor had rel