Epstein Secrets

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, -VS- SCOTT individually, Intervenors.' ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. individually, and and JANE DOE, Respondents CAS

e final hearing without objection. No one argued they were not ready for trial, but simply argued a technical violation of rule 1.440. On appeal in Labor Ready, the defendants argued that the Rule 1.440 violation entitled them to a new hearing. This Court rejected the argument, noting that the defendants'

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

raises no objection to the noncompliance." [e.a.] Id. at 1055 (quoting Parrish, 505 So. 2d at 648). The case at bar is clearly distinguishable from Labor Ready. First, Epstein did not waive the error by appearing at trial without raising an objection. See id. Again, Epstein adamantly voiced his objection b

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

this Court's Labor Ready decision as the controlling precedent governing his authority to deny Epstein's motion to remove the case from the docket. Labor Ready, though well-decided, is both distinguishable and inapplicable to this case. First of all, Labor Ready was a final appeal, not a mandamus proceedin