Epstein Secrets

t was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his malicious prosecution action, during which time the Fourth District issued Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), holding that the litigation privilege did not apply to a malicious prosecution ac

. Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Epstein filed for review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court resolved the conflict in Debrincat v. Fischer, No. SCIS-1477, 2017 WL 526508 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017), holding that the litigation privilege does not bar a malicious prosecution action. B

t was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his malicious prosecution action, during which time the Fourth District issued Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), holding that the litigation privilege did not apply to a malicious prosecution act

. Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Epstein filed for review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court resolved the conflict in Debrincat v. Fischer, No. SC15-1477, 2017 WL 526508 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017), holding that the litigation privilege does not bar a malicious prosecution action. Ba

cted the summary judgment on probable cause and bona fide termination. We filed an appeal. That case was briefed. And prior to the oral argument, the Fourth District rejected the Wolfe case. Now, what happened in the briefing in our case is our initial brief addressed solely litigation privilege, because that

did there really is not more than dicta, because when appellate counsel for Epstein attempted to raise -- and he had to -- I mean the Fischer vs. Debrincat case -- THE COURT: Debrincat -- let's call it Fischer, F-I-S-C-H-E-R. MR. BREWER: Fischer had come down, and clearly the court was going to follow