Epstein Secrets

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, -VS- SCOTT individually, Intervenors.' ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. individually, and and JANE DOE, Respondents CASE NO. 4D18-0762 RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEARCY DENNY S

ember 7, 2009, while Edwards was pursuing the cases noted above on behalf of his clients, Epstein filed the original Complaint here against Edwards, Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein"), and one of Edwards' clients, designated as ".." (App. 1). The gravamen of the Complaint was that after Edwards had filed those cases

15 EFTA00808533 C. Epstein Waived the Right to Rely on Rule 1.440 Epstein has waived reliance on Rule 1.440. As discussed above, Epstein filed the Second Amended Complaint on August 22, 2011. Rothstein never answered the complaint. Pursuant to Rule 1.500(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, it was incumbent upon Epst

1.440 Action #1 — Epstein v. Rothstein (Second Amended Complaint), 3. First, Epstein has a claim for Conspiracy to Commit Abuse of Process against Scott Rothstein. That claim is pled in the Second Amended Complaint, which was filed on August 21, 2011. 4. Edwards, however, is not a party to that case as Epste

s involving different parties and different claims, and it is undisputable that Edwards' action against Epstein for Malicious Prosecution, to which Rothstein is not a party, is at issue. EFTA00808651 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Rem

ded Complaint, which was filed on August 21, 2011. 4. Edwards, however, is not a party to that case as Epstein voluntarily dismissed Edwards from the Second Amended Complaint on August 16, 2012.' That point alone nullifies Epstein's entire argument that Edwards' Motion to Set Case for Trial was not ripe. Rule 1.440(b), o

EAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI On Review of a Non-Final Order of th

underlying all counts were interrelated). BACKGROUNDS This unique and complex case arose from the 2009 implosion of the Fort Lauderdale law firm Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, where defendant/counter- plaintiff Bradley Edwards worked and held himself out as a partner. The principal of the firm, defenda

Edwards filed a "Supplement" to his Motion for Separate Trials (App. 15). In his Supplement, Edwards advised for the first time that no default on the Second Amended Complaint had been entered in Epstein's case against Rothstein. In other words, at the time Edwards filed his motion to set case for trial, 7 EFTA00793699

EAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS On Review of a Non-Final Ord

Epstein filed his initial Complaint in this action against Scott Rothstein, Bradley Edwards and L.M.'- Epstein alleged the following counts against Rothstein: a. (1) Violation of § 772,101 — Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act b. (2) Violation of § 895.01 — Florida's RICO Act c. (3) Abuse

m., in a "Supplement" to his Motion for Separate Trials filed just the day before (App. 14), Edwards asserted for the first time that no default on the Second Amended Complaint had been entered in Epstein's case against Rothstein. In other words, at the time Edwards filed his motion to set case for trial, the case was not

EAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DENYING STAY Pursuant to Florid

Epstein filed his initial Complaint in this action against Scott Rothstein, Bradley Edwards and L.M.3 Epstein alleged the following counts against Rothstein: a. (1) Violation of § 772,101 — Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act b. (2) Violation of § 895.01 — Florida's RICO Act c. (3) Abuse

recognized the case was not at issue at the time the motion to 5 Epstein simultaneously filed his Motion for Default Against Defendant Rothstein on the Second Amended Complaint. (App. 17). Pursuant to Rule 1.440, the "action" will be at issue 20 days after the circuit court grants Epstein's motion for default. Thereafter,

at has JEFFREY EPSTEIN, S transpired is of extreme consternation to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. 4 the court. It has caused me to have to SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; 7 engage in an inordinate amount of time to BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, 8 the exclusion of other natters that needed Defendan

ion for trial on May 24th, 2017. There is no dispute. And Mr. Edwards has actually pointed it out, Mr. Epstein did not have a default against Mr. Rothstein. Contrary to what Mr. Edwards' suggestion is, is to cure this issue -- 10 THE COURT: Mr. Epstein did not have a 11 default against Mr. Rothstein

longer applied. Mr. Edwards pointed out to this Court and to Mr. Epstein -- he is absolutely correct -- that Mr. Epstein's operative complaint is the Second Amended Complaint to which there is no default. What rule 2.440 tolls this Court to do is to look at the time that Mr. Edwards moved -- it's maybe a notice to set

D FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1201 Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. • ESPIRITO SANTO PLAZA, 1395 BRICKELL AVENUE, 14•• FLOOR. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 • (305) 789-9200 EFTA00584348 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. CASE NO. 50 2009 CA 040800 XXXXMB AG Epstein's Am MPO Prejclude O/C, etc. from Making Extrajudicial Statements, et al. Il. BACKGROUND In

ended Complaint which contained a single count against Edwards for abuse of process, and a single count against Rothstein. Edwards moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. At the September 28, 2011 hearing on Edwards' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the Court explained that abuse of process required -