Epstein Secrets

lations to the proceeding.'). To this end, Florida courts have expansively interpreted the `relates to' requirement. See Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc. v. Rainbow Jewelry, Inc., 2012 WL 4138028 M. Fla. Sept. 19, 2012) (`[t]he decision to file a lawsuit clearly relates to a judicial proceeding'); DelMonico v. Traynor, 116

ier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, M. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). Additionally, the Third District Court of Appeal in Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), concluded that the litigation privilege applies to a cause of action for malicious prosecuti

lations to the proceeding.'). To this end, Florida courts have expansively interpreted the `relates to' requirement. See Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc. v. Rainbow Jewelry, Inc., 2012 WL 4138028 (. Fla. Sept. 19, 2012) (`[t]he decision to file a lawsuit clearly relates to a judicial proceeding'); DelMonico v. Traynor, 116

pier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell,.. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). Additionally, the Third District Court of Appeal in Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), concluded that the litigation privilege applies to a cause of action for malicious prosecuti

lations to the proceeding.'). To this end, Florida courts have expansively interpreted the `relates to' requirement. See Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc. v. Rainbow Jewelry, Inc., 2012 WL 4138028 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2012) (`[t]he decision to file a lawsuit clearly relates to a judicial proceeding'); DelMonico v. Traynor, 1

g, P.A., 125 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) in matters involving the litigation privilege. In the instant case, the trial court was legally bound by the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Wolfe, as the Florida Supreme Court stated unequivocally that a "trial court may not overrule or recede from the controlling decision