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

oks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, M. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007), and correctly recognized and applied the litigation privilege. Id. This Court continued its analysis, dis

Haddad, Tonja 8/26/2013 For Educational Use Only Wolfe v. Foreman, — So.3d — (2013) 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 2013 WL 3724763 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS N

rida, both to common-law causes of action, those initiated pursuant to a statute, or of some other origin," Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 384 (Fla.2007), and reaffirmed that "ralbsolute immunity must be afforded to any act occurring during the course of a judic

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

, Mayes & Mitchell, M. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & 9 EFTA00714932 Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007), and correctly recognized and applied the litigation privilege. Id. This Court continued its analysis, dis

le cause issue was one for the jury. However, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Epstein based on the litigation privilege, relying on Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Accordingly, Final Judgment was entered in favor of Epstein. 2 EFTA00613502 Edwards appealed the su

Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & 9 EFTA00613598 Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007), and correctly recognized and applied the litigation privilege. Id. This Court continued its analysis, dis

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

nd[] 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 afforded to any act occurring during the cou

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

tigation 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 connected to pending li