Epstein Secrets

tically negate any basis for fees. In moving for and obtaining dismissal, Epstein relied on a decision from the Third District Court of Appeal. See Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). No other reported decision in Florida — or any jurisdiction in the country — has extended absolute imm

ein." So, Epstein cannot claim entitlement to fees because he cannot prove he has beaten his Proposal, or even that he has equaled his Proposal. As the Florida Supreme Court explained in invalidating Proposals which include equitable claims, the rule and statute require a pure mathematical comparison between offer and re

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

Fla. 197, 44 So. 357 (1907). In Levitt, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.I994), the Florida Supreme Court extended the litigation privilege, already applicable to defamatory statements (slander and libel) and perjury, to all other torts so long as the

ng more than establish the fact that another trial court, just as this Court did in the case at hand, properly applied and followed the decision in Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). Accordingly, with no change in the law or facts since the Court's original ruling, and with Edw

ing and a lengthy hearing, this Court ruled that the litigation privilege barred Edwards's causes of 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, McCa

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

ving the litigation privilege. In the instant case, the trial court was legally bound by the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Wolfe, as the Florida Supreme Court stated unequivocally that a "trial court may not overrule or recede from the controlling decision of" an appellate court. Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2

8 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Rayner, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as the application 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

ssue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fla. R.Civ. P. 1.510(c). This 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, McCa

arria, 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), correctly concluded that all actions occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, so l

ing and a lengthy hearing, this Court ruled that the litigation privilege barred Edwards's causes of 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, McCa