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

Likewise, Appellant's reliance on Graham-Eckes Palm Beach Academy v. Johnson, 573 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), is equally as misplaced. Graham- Eckes is a per curiam affirmance in which the Fourth District Court stated, in its single concluding sentence: "[w]hile appellant's argument is persuasive

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

Likewise, Appellant's reliance on Graham-Eckes Palm Beach Academy v. Johnson, 573 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), is equally as misplaced. Graham- Eckes is a per curiam affirmance in which the Fourth District Court stated, in its single concluding sentence: "[w]hile appellant's argument is persuasive

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

Likewise, Appellant's reliance on Graham-Eckes Palm Beach Academy v. Johnson, 573 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), is equally as misplaced. Graham- Eckes is a per curiam affirmance in which the Fourth District Court stated, in its single concluding sentence: "[w]hile appellant's argument is persuasive