Epstein Secrets

ll v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). These cases provide the binding precedent in this area of law. All actions occurring during the

true and correct copy of the foregoing was faxed and mailed this Ze iday of August, 2011 to Jack Scarola, Esq., Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409. .).2a 01-0 Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Fla. Bar No. 235954 FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, Y.A.

ell v. US. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). These cases provide the binding precedent in this area of law. All actions occurring during the

true and correct copy of the foregoing was faxed and mailed this ac day of August, 2011 to Jack Scarola, Esq., Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, E., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409. 2.-O Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Fla. Bar No. 235954 WASOPOWROSFIlit-ATI chgnuattS. Asa

with the transcript can be understood for not remembering. But Epstein moved for summary judgment on three grounds: litigation privilege that the Wolfe case compelled with, and also that we were unable to prove two elements of the malicious prosecution claim. One of them was lack of probable caus

d to be heard. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Scarola. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, Jack Scarola, David Vitale from Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart and Shipley; and Mr. Phil Burlington of Burlington and Rochenbach, on behalf of Mr. Edwards in this matter. As has been acknowledged, we have not yet seen a

ctions taken by him occurred during the litigation of his abuse of process claim against Edwards. For support, he relies primarily on the decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 2013 WL 3724763 (Fla. 3d DCA July 17, 2013), wherein the Third District found that the litigation privilege barred both an abuse of proc

ous prosecution is not barred by the litigation privilege — an implicit recognition acknowledged by the Third District itself — Epstein’s reliance on Wolfe is misplaced. Wo/fe is also factually distinguishable from Edwards’ claims against Epstein. Wolfe involved a malicious prosecution action against att

ake the: deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law firm of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit ““N” at 16. 74. Edwards gave notice that he intended to take David Copperfield's deposition. Edwards possessed a leg