Epstein Secrets

) 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

on for misconduct!" Id. at 593 (quoting Levin, 639 So. 2d at 608). 15 EFTA00589635 Appellant correctly acknowledges that in Echevarria, Mc Calla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) the Florida Supreme Court not only reaffirmed the Levin decision but also expanded it to in

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

bsequent civil action for misconduct?" Id. at 593 (quoting Levin, 639 So. 2d at 608). Appellant correctly acknowledges that in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) the Florida Supreme Court 15 EFTA00714938 not only reaffirmed the Levin decision but als

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

bsequent civil action for misconduct?" Id. at 593 (quoting Levin, 639 So. 2d at 608). Appellant correctly acknowledges that in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) the Florida Supreme Court 15 EFTA00613604 not only reaffirmed the Levin decision but als

varria, 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), is bound to conclude that all actions occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, so

iled and were related to the judicial proceedings, both causes of action were completely barred. Id. (emphasis added); see also Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett &Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (F1a.2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, M. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 6

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

s well. id. The litigation privilege applies in all causes of action, whether for common- law torts or statutory violations. See Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). Defamatory statements made by lawyer while interviewing a witness in preparation for and con