Epstein Secrets

ts known by the defendant in the malicious prosecution action at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present

at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present to the court and jury." 446 So. 2d at 1167. Here, both the aff

ge female plaintiff. To augment his concocted story, Rothstein invited D3 to his office to view the thirteen banker's boxes of actual case files in Jane Doe in order to demonstrate that the claims against Epstein were legitimate and that the evidence against Epstein was real. In particular, Rothstein cla

n determine whether Plaintiff "had a reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances known to him, in the validity of his claim." See Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (defining probable cause) (citing Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956)). Bifurcating the tria

TRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, -VS- SCOTT individually, EDWARDS, L.M., E.W., Intervenors. ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. individually, and and JANE DOE, Respondents CASE NO. 4D18-0762 APPENDIX TO RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PAGE 1. Non-Prosecution Agreement, dated September 24, 200

2 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)). As Defendants point out, there muse be an "actionable underlying tort or wrong" for an actionable conspiracy claim. Wright, Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). 5 EFTA00234428 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08)18.2008 Page 6 of 11

1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08)18:2008 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, a/k/a, JANE DOE NO. I, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiff Jane Doe moves the Court to remand this act

a state and federal courts. See, SCI Funeral Svs. of Fla., Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702, n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“As the Levin court cited Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1984), with approval, presumably the cause of action for malicious prosecution continues to exist and would not

ards filed a civil sot against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of L.M. See Complaint, LM. v. Epstein, (Exhibit “V”). 3 47. Jane Doe’s federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord wit