Epstein Secrets

ION "AG" Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, V. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. Defendants/Counter-Plainti

RCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO.: 2009CA0408003OOOCMB CIVIL DIVISION "AG" Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, V. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Counter-Defendan

udgment statute and rule must be strictly construed, as they are in derogation of the common law rule that each party pay its oven attorney's fees. Alamo Fin., v. Mazoff, 112 So. 3d 626, 628 (FM. 4th DCA 2013). "The, rule does not demand the impossible. It merely requires that the settlement proposal be

ION "AG" Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. Defendants/Counter-Plainti

IRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO.: 2009CA040800XXXXMB CIVIL DIVISION "AG" Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Counter-Defendan

judgment statute and rule must be strictly construed, as they are in derogation of the common law rule that each party pay its own attorney's fees. Alamo Fin., L.P. v. Mazoff, 112 So. 3d 626, 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). "The rule does not demand the impossible. It merely requires that the settlement proposa

IRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO.: 2009CA040800XXXXMB CIVIL DIVISION "AG" Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. / ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Counter-Def

ION "AG" Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Defendants/Counter-Plainti

judgment statute and rule must be strictly construed, as they are in derogation of the common law rule that each party pay its own attorney's fees. Alamo Fin.. L.P. v. Mazoff, 112 So. 3d 626, 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). "The rule does not demand the impossible. It merely requires that the settlement propos