Epstein Secrets

ecution, and that Wolfe is in conflict with pre-existing law on this issue. See 5 EFTA00589625 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

iii EFTA00589620 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This matter arises from the Appellant, Bradley Edwards's appeal of the trial court's final Order granting Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. In this brief, the parties will be referred to as they appear before this Court or by the party's proper name. References to the Record will be ma

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

iii EFTA00714923 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This matter arises from the Appellant, Bradley Edwards's appeal of the trial court's final Order granting Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. In this brief, the parties will be referred to as they appear before this Court or by the party's proper name. References to the Record will be ma

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

iii EFTA00613589 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This matter arises from the Appellant, Bradley Edwards's appeal of the trial court's final Order granting Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. In this brief, the parties will be referred to as they appear before this Court or by the party's proper name. References to the Record will be ma

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

th the court or quasi-judicial body'). Id. at *2. See also Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250, 1276 (11th Cir. 2004). In its Order on Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, the trial court also correctly determined that "the cases cited by Edwards [in his opposition to Summary Judgment] involved malicious prosecution