Epstein Secrets

able and inapposite to the instant case, and as such its narrow holding has no bearing on, and should not be considered by, this Court. Similarly, Appellant cites Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) in support of his assertion that the litigation privilege is inapplicable to a malicious

his assertion that the litigation privilege is inapplicable to a malicious prosecution claim. However, such reliance thereupon is misplaced. First, Appellant's characterization of Levin as impliedly approving the survival of a malicious prosecution claim in the Wright case is completely unfounded. In Levi

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

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

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

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

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