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

ation that the litigation 2 EFTA00589622 privilege applied to plaintiff's malicious prosecution case on a motion for judgment on the pleadings); LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (affirming the finding that the litigation privilege applied to plaintiff's ab

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

ation that the litigation 2 EFTA00714925 privilege applied to plaintiff's malicious prosecution case on a motion for judgment on the pleadings); LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (affirming the finding that the litigation privilege applied to plaintiff's ab

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

ation that the litigation 2 EFTA00613591 privilege applied to plaintiff's malicious prosecution case on a motion for judgment on the pleadings); LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (affirming the finding that the litigation privilege applied to plaintiff's ab