Epstein Secrets

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No. 4D18-0787 LT Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and

ATE TRIALS BECAUSE THE CLAIMS INVOLVE INTERRELATED FACTUAL ISSUES AND, THEREFORE, A RISK OF INCONSISTENT VERDICTS EXISTS. "[A] severance under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.270(b), while residing in the sound discretion of the trial court upon an appropriate showing, should remain the exception." Travelers

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: 4D18-0762 Appellate Case No.: 4D18-0787 LT Case No: 502009CA040800XXXXMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOT

s were consolidated for panel purposes on March 16, 2018. EFTA00808506 The consolidated appeals concern a violation of the mandatory language in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 that requires a court to set an action for trial only when all claims and counterclaims are "at issue" and reported decisions from

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: 4D18-0762 LT Case No: 502009CA040800XXXXMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and

ify them on his Exhibit List. Edwards has provided not a single reason why this Court should expedite its careful review and enforce the mandate of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 (Petition for Writ of Mandamus) and determine if the severance of the interrelated and dependent actions should continue to one jur

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY

Edwards filed his motion to set case for trial, 7 EFTA00793699 the case was not at issue, and thus, the scheduled trial may not proceed based on Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1440.5 (App. 15). Upon receiving Edwards' Supplement to his Motion for Separate Trials, Epstein's counsel immediately researched the Rule

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY

time Edwards filed his motion to set case for trial, the case was not at issue, and thus, Epstein's case against Rothstein may not proceed based on Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440. (App. 15). Rule 1.440 provides: (a) When at Issue. An action is at issue after any motions directed to the last pleading served

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY

BECAUSE THE CIRCUIT COURT MUST REMOVE THE CASE FROM THE TRIAL DOCKET IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATE SET FORTH IN RULE 1.440. In violation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440, this case was not "at issue" when Edwards filed his Motion to Set Case for Trial. Therefore, the circuit court's ensuing Order set