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

her jurisdictions are not controlling upon this Court, especially when there is binding Florida precedent directly applicable hereto. Additionally, the Florida Litigation Privilege is a court created doctrine, and as such, case law from other jurisdictions is of no import and has no bearing on this matter. Moreover, binding Fl

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

her jurisdictions are not controlling upon this Court, especially when there is binding Florida precedent directly applicable hereto. Additionally, the Florida Litigation Privilege is a court created doctrine, and as such, case law from other jurisdictions is of no import and has no bearing on this matter. Moreover, binding Fl

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

her jurisdictions are not controlling upon this Court, especially when there is binding Florida precedent directly applicable hereto. Additionally, the Florida Litigation Privilege is a court created doctrine, and as such, case law from other jurisdictions is of no import and has no bearing on this matter. Moreover, binding Fl