Epstein Secrets

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND SUPPORTINGMEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, by and

UCTION Edwards's Motion to Strike is based solely upon his erroneous argument that this Court's consideration of the probable cause issue raised in Epstein's Motion for Summary Tonga Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fon Lauderdale, FL 33301. EFTA00808559 Judgment is batted by the law of the case doc

IRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADL

or judicial proceeding . . ."). Accordingly, Edwards's Motion to Strike should be denied on the grounds of both the law of the case and estoppel. B. Epstein Did Not "Actually Present" to the Fourth District Court of Appeal the Issue of Probable Cause The positions Edwards now takes in his Motion to Stri

argument as to probable cause for this Court's consideration. See Nat'l City Bank v. Accent Marketing Assoc., supra. Edwards argues that Gabor v. Gabor & Co., Inc., 599 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) "is directly on point." See Edwards's Motion to Strike, p. 5. However, the Gabor case is clearly distingui

-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, individually, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Strike Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Fourth Amended Counterclaim and Supporting Memorandum of Law, based on the law of the case doctrine. RELEVANT PR

of Law, based on the law of the case doctrine. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the Fourth Amended Counterclaim, Edwards raised two claims against Epstein: 1) abuse of process and 2) malicious prosecution. As to the malicious prosecution claim, Edwards alleged that the filing of the original complaint

) 27:22,24 30:21 imploded (1) 27:5 influence (1) 33:1 information (2) 8:1 13:24 3:24 5:11,13 7:21 17:20 29:21 31:5 33:12 38:9 39:20 40:9 Jeffrey (2) 1:4 6:11 jgoldberger@... 2:11 job (2) juncture (1) 5:24 jurisdiction (1) 28:17 jury (3) 19:5 inherent (1) 44:2 48:5 58:I9 61:13 17:

hat I 24 handled the state claims that involved Mr. Epstein 25 when I was in Division B. So I have a signif

f material fact as to probable cause; thus, consideration of this issue by this Court again is precluded by the law of the case doctrine. Gabor v. Gabor & Co., Inc., 599 So.2d 737, 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), is directly on point. In Gabor, the appellate court held that there was a genuine issue of material fa

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO: DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND SUPPORTINGMEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respect

49 Introduction Edwards' motion to strike is based solely upon his argument that this Court's consideration of the probable cause issue raised in Epstein's motion for summary judgment is barred by the law of the case doctrine. Edwards argues that the probable cause issue was raised by Epstein as a po

IRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADL

e argument as to probable cause for this Court's consideration. See Nat'l City Bank v. Accent Marketing Assoc., supra. Edwards argues that Gabor v. Gabor & Co., Inc., 599 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) "is directly on point." Motion to Strike at 5. Gabor is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the Third D