Epstein Secrets

tated that neither malicious prosecution nor 5 abuse of process would be barred by the litigation 6 privilege. 7 I have also cited the Cruz vs. Angelides, 8 the Middle District of -- I'm sorry, 9 574 So2d. 278, Second DCA 1991, which also 10 suggests that malicious prosecution would not be 11 b

nd to which causes of 23 action the litigation privilege would apply. 24 The seminal case now for us, I guess, now 25 is Levin. This was Levin, Mabie suing. It was www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606520 12 1 actually a tortious interference case. But the 2 case went up to the Fl

tated that neither malicious prosecution nor 5 abuse of process would be barred by the litigation 6 privilege. 7 I have also cited the Cruz vs. Angelides, 8 the Middle District of -- I'm sorry, 9 574 Sold. 278, Second DCA 1991, which also 10 suggests that malicious prosecution would not be 11 b

ne how far and to which causes of action the litigation privilege would apply. The seminal case now for us, I guess, now is Levin. This was Levin, Mabie suing. It was www.phippareporting.com 888 811-3408 001221 EFTA00613518 12 1 actually a tortious interference case. But the 2 case went up t

ns preliminary to or during judicial proceedings, an abuse of process claim would never exist, nor would a claim for malicious prosecution”); Cruz v. Angelides, 574 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(“the law is well settled that a witness in a judicial proceeding,... is absolutely immune from any civil liability

ious behavior, suéh as tortious interference with business relationship, so long as act has some relationship to proceeding, See Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So, 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). The immunity afforded to statements made during the course of a ju