Epstein Secrets

414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown part

Judgment motion that Appellant could not satisfy all of the elements of a Malicious Prosecution claim, including that the suit by Appellee against Appellant resulted in a bona-fide termination in favor of Appellant. Appellee took a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which does not constitute a bona-

f material fact as to probable cause; thus, consideration of this issue by this Court again is precluded by the law of the case doctrine. Gabor v. Gabor & Co., Inc., 599 So.2d 737, 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), is directly on point. In Gabor, the appellate court held that there was a genuine issue of material fa

esent as a point on appeal the absence of the probable cause element in Edwards' action for malicious prosecution. In opposition, Edwards filed his Appellant's Response to Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Argument. (App. *-*). Edwards argued that the proposed probable cause point on appeal would inj

e argument as to probable cause for this Court's consideration. See Nat'l City Bank v. Accent Marketing Assoc., supra. Edwards argues that Gabor v. Gabor & Co., Inc., 599 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) "is directly on point." Motion to Strike at 5. Gabor is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the Third D

Judgment motion that Appellant could not satisfy all of the elements of a Malicious Prosecution claim, including that the suit by Appellee against Appellant resulted in a bona-fide termination in favor of Appellant. Appellee took a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which does not constitute a bona-

argument as to probable cause for this Court's consideration. See Nat'l City Bank v. Accent Marketing Assoc., supra. Edwards argues that Gabor v. Gabor & Co., Inc., 599 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) "is directly on point." See Edwards's Motion to Strike, p. 5. However, the Gabor case is clearly distingui