Epstein Secrets

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

resolved in favor of the Defendant. This Steinberg case appears to be analogous to the Olson case upon which Edwards relied in his argument against Summary Judgment; an argument which was rejected by this Court. Transcript of Motion for Summary Judgment hearing, p. 58. The Olson case, just as this Court correct

ment in an action for abuse of process on the basis of absolute immunity and on the authority of Levin). As such, this Court was correct in granting Summary Judgment in 3 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00613839 favor of Epstein. Edwards, despite his interminable filings,

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

ment in an action for abuse of process on the basis of absolute immunity and on the authority of Levin). As such, this Court was correct in granting Summary Judgment in favor of Epstein. Edwards, despite his interminable filings, has not identified one Florida case decided either after the Wolfe decision or the

resolved in favor of the Defendant. This Steinberg case appears to be analogous to the Olson case upon which Edwards relied in his argument against Summary Judgment; an argument which was rejected by this Court. Transcript of Motion for Slummy Judgment hearing, p. 58. The Olson case, just as this Court correctl

) 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

ecution, and that Wolfe is in conflict with pre-existing law on this issue. See 5 EFTA00589625 Brief, p. 6. Appellant does, however, concede that Summary Judgment was proper as to his Abuse of Process claim, see Brief, p. 10, n.2, and that there are no disputed issues of fact presented. Brief, p. 10. Appelle

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

ecution, and that Wolfe is in conflict with pre-existing law on this issue. See 5 EFTA00714928 Brief, p. 6. Appellant does, however, concede that Summary Judgment was proper as to his Abuse of Process claim, see Brief, p. 10, n.2, and that there are no disputed issues of fact presented. Brief, p. 10. Appelle

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

ecution, and that Wolfe is in conflict with pre-existing law on this issue. See 5 EFTA00613594 Brief, p. 6. Appellant does, however, concede that Summary Judgment was proper as to his Abuse of Process claim, see Brief, p. 10, n.2, and that there are no disputed issues of fact presented. Brief, p. 10. Appelle

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

based on the undeniable holdings in Wolfe and the cases cited therein, Epstein's actions were absolutely protected by the litigation privilege and Summary Judgment was properly granted. Additionally, Appellant attempts to support his position by referencing the most recent Florida Supreme Court decision apply