Epstein Secrets

resolved in favor of the Defendant. This Steinberg case appears to be analogous to the Olson case upon which Edwards relied in his argument against Summary Judgment; an argument which was rejected by this Court. Transcript of Motion for Summary Judgment hearing, p. 58. The Olson case, just as this Court correct

ment in an action for abuse of process on the basis of absolute immunity and on the authority of Levin). As such, this Court was correct in granting Summary Judgment in 3 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00613839 favor of Epstein. Edwards, despite his interminable filings,

ourt binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the application and analysis of those cases in Wolfe v. Forem

ment in an action for abuse of process on the basis of absolute immunity and on the authority of Levin). As such, this Court was correct in granting Summary Judgment in favor of Epstein. Edwards, despite his interminable filings, has not identified one Florida case decided either after the Wolfe decision or the

resolved in favor of the Defendant. This Steinberg case appears to be analogous to the Olson case upon which Edwards relied in his argument against Summary Judgment; an argument which was rejected by this Court. Transcript of Motion for Slummy Judgment hearing, p. 58. The Olson case, just as this Court correctl

ourt binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the application and analysis of those cases in Wolfe v. Forem

ecution, and that Wolfe is in conflict with pre-existing law on this issue. See 5 EFTA00714928 Brief, p. 6. Appellant does, however, concede that Summary Judgment was proper as to his Abuse of Process claim, see Brief, p. 10, n.2, and that there are no disputed issues of fact presented. Brief, p. 10. Appelle

uarantee Title & Trust, Co., 748 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) 13 DelMonico v. Traynor, 116 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2013) 2, 10, 18, 19 Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barren & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) passim Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (FIa. 1992) 13, 17, 22 Graham-Ecke

ecution, and that Wolfe is in conflict with pre-existing law on this issue. See 5 EFTA00613594 Brief, p. 6. Appellant does, however, concede that Summary Judgment was proper as to his Abuse of Process claim, see Brief, p. 10, n.2, and that there are no disputed issues of fact presented. Brief, p. 10. Appelle

uarantee Title & Trust, Co., 748 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) 13 DelMonico v. Traynor, 116 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2013) 2, 10, 18, 19 Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barren & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) passim Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (FIa. 1992) 13, 17, 22 Graham-Ecke

based on the undeniable holdings in Wolfe and the cases cited therein, Epstein's actions were absolutely protected by the litigation privilege and Summary Judgment was properly granted. Additionally, Appellant attempts to support his position by referencing the most recent Florida Supreme Court decision apply

arty to `prosecut[e] or defend[] a lawsuit without fear of having to defend their actions in a subsequent civil action for misconduct.' Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007); see also Levin, 639 So.2d at 608 C[A]bsolute immunity must be afforded to any