Epstein Secrets

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO. 4D14-2282 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT The appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully moves for

28 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that the litigation privilege applies to causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process). Edwards appealed and is challenging the final judgment solely as to the malicious prosecution claim. 2. After the parties' briefs were filed, this Court is

rds, Rothstein was deposed. At the morning session of deposition on December 12, 2011, Rothstein was asked the following about Bradley Edwards: Q: Brad Edwards, would he have reported illegal activity? A: I don't know. Q: Would he have reported trust account defalcations? 22 R. 816, citing letter dated Ju

ion privilege applied to both the abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims, and also finding that Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe provided "binding prece

D MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Plaintiff" or "Epstein"), hereby files the following Response in Opposition to Defendant Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") and states as follows:' SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Edwards' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgmen

OTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EDWARDS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Plaintiff" or "Epstein"), hereby files the following Response in Opposition to De

rtaken in judicial proceedings that bear no relation to those proceedings. See, e.g., Levin, Middlebrooks, Mahie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 616, 608 (1994). It is for a fact finder to determine whether Edwards' acts were in furtherance of the judicial proceedings or for som

EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG Judge: CROW PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTI

thereof, Epstein states as follows: FACTS Epstein originally filed this action to recover damages from Defendant Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Edwards, based upon Epstein's well-founded belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners, engaged in se

elation to those proceedings, including for an action for abuse of process or malicious prosecution. Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). The Florida Supreme Court explained the policy reasons for the litigation privilege and in so doing stated: In ba

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO IMPROPER FILING OF SUPPLE

TAL AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against Epstein; abuse of process and mali

action against Epstein. The Court, in applying the Florida Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the

t Lauderdale, FL 33301 ttorneys or e rey pstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHR

rclaim and Supporting Memorandum 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 th

4th DCA 2014) 2 LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (FIa. 3d DCA 2011) 3 Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) passim McCullough v. Kubiak, 4D13-4048 (Feb. 18, 2015) 9, 10 Microbilt Corporation v. Chex Systems, Inc., 2013 WL

as quoted by the Wolfe Third District Court of Appeal opinion? MR. KING: There's nothing alleged. (T. 53-54). Accordingly, as explicitly stated in Edwards's own pleadings and discovery responses, and as conceded by Edwards's counsel at oral argument, the events giving rise to Edwards's purported claim

y served to the following on February 25, 2015: William B. King Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. 3409 Bradley J. Edwards Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Mark Nurik Law Offices of Mark S. Nurik 1 E. Broward Blvd.

or such as the alleged misconduct at issue, so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). As a result, if a party seeks to bring a cause of action involving acts that neither occurred during, nor had rel

OR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JU DGMENT THIS CAU

nds and decides as follows: In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against Epstein; abuse of process and malic

la. R.Civ. P. 1.510(c). This court, in applying the Florida Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA0408003OOOCMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RE

CONSIDERATION INTRODUCTION In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against Epstein; abuse of process and mali

action against Epstein. The Court, in applying the Florida Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the