Epstein Secrets

ward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Fanner Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 42

r granting Epstein's motion for summary judgment, this Court recounted the following background facts: EFTA00808205 [Epstein] filed suit against [Edwards]. Edwards then filed a counter- claim against Epstein. Epstein subsequently dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. The counter-claim proceeded,

essential element of a party's cause of action necessarily renders all other facts offered by the non-moving party immaterial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "Just because conflicting evidence exists does not mean probable cause is a jury question." C.A. Hansen Corp. v. Wicker

A 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 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWAR

-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards' Counterclaim, and states as follows : I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Summary judgment should be entered in favor of Epstein on Edwards' single-count Counterclaim for abuse of process because it is legally insufficient. Edwards' Counterclaim does not state an actionable claim for ab

mplete failure of proof of an essential element necessarily renders all other facts offered by the non-moving party immaterial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). B. SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF EPSTEIN ON EDWARDS' COUNTERCLAIM FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS BECAUSE EDWARD

Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (I Ith Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Cald

itled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 2

9.) The May 30, 2008 victim letter to Jane Doe 5 also acknowledged the victims' rights under the CVRA . (DE 407 at 11100.) In mid-June of 2008, Mr. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to

r. Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Petitioners, contacted the line prosecutor to inform her that he represented Jane Doe 1 and, later, Jane Doe 2. Edwards asked to meet to provide information about the federal crimes committed by Epstein against these victims. The line prosecutor and Edwards discussed

R. Civ. P. 56(a). The stringent burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court should not grant summary judgment unless it is clear that a trial is unnecessary, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, In