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

rse of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, so long as the actions have some relation to the underlying proceeding. Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 SO. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). This position was reaffirmed in Echevarria. In Wolfe, the Third District Court of Appeal, q

) 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

ion, 141 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 2 LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (FIa. 3d DCA 2011) 3 Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) passim McCullough v. Kubiak, 4DI3-4048 (Feb. 18, 2015) 9, 10 Microbilt Corporation v. Chex

ar of having to defend their actions in a subsequent civil action for misconduct. Levin, 639 So.2d at 608 (emphasis added). The recent decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 FLA. L. WEEKLY D1540 (July 17, 2013), is instructive, as it is directly on point with the facts and law presented in the case at han

ity for actions taken in relation to those proceedings, including for an action for abuse of process or malicious prosecution. Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). The Florida Supreme Court explained the policy reasons for the litigation privilege an

use of process claims filed against Epstein by the appellant, Bradley J. Edwards. The trial judge relied in part upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that the litigation privilege applies to causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse

eedings, the litigation privilege applied to both the abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims, and also finding that Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe p

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

. This Court agrees and grants summary judgment in favor of Epstein. EXHIAIT "B" EFTA00617998 The Court thoroughly reviewed Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell 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 Wol

chell. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Bchevarria, McCalla. Ravmer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 Sold 380 (Fla. 2007) and Wolfe v. Foreman 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). The court finds these cases to be not only persuasive but binding. The court is bound by the hol

7298 CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB of action for both abuse of process and malicious prosecution. 3. The court has reviewed Levin, Middlebrooks. Moves & Mitchell. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Bchevarria, McCalla. Ravmer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 Sold 380 (Fla. 2007) and Wolfe

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

ion, 141 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 2 LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (FIa. 3d DCA 2011) 3 Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) passim McCullough v. Kubiak, 4D13-4048 (Feb. 18, 2015) 9, 10 Microbilt Corporation v. C

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

ion, 141 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 2 LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (FIa. 3d DCA 2011) 3 Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) passim McCullough v. Kubiak, 4D13-4048 (Feb. 18, 2015) 9, 10 Microbilt Corporation v. C

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

t or other tortious behavior such as the alleged misconduct at issue, so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). As a result, if a party seeks to bring a cause of action involving acts that neither

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

s 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, McCalla, Rayner, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as