Epstein Secrets

BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA040800

e litigation privilege applies to malicious prosecution claims, as well as its finding that the litigation privilege was applicable specifically to Edwards's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Epstein, constituted issues of law. DelMonico, 116 So. 3d at 1211 (stating the dete

vices of Florida, Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) 22 Steinberg v. Steinberg, 152 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, M., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d

N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. No. 50-2009-CA-040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO: DEFE

t 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 point on appeal in Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and that

out prejudice, which does not constitute a bona-fide termination, one of the six essential elements of a malicious prosecution claim. See Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Appellant neither addresses nor submits argument as to Appellee's assertion, so this is not addressed in this A

N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. No. 50-2009-CA-040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFEN

on for Summary Tonga Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fon Lauderdale, FL 33301. EFTA00808559 Judgment is batted by the law of the case doctrine. Edwards argues that the probable cause issue was raised by Epstein as a point on appeal in Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and that

out prejudice, which does not constitute a bona-fide termination, one of the six essential elements of a malicious prosecution claim. See Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Appellant neither addresses nor submits argument as to Appellee's assertion, so this is not addressed in this A

RECEIVED, 2/25/2015 3:10 PM, Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. / FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA04

e litigation privilege applies to malicious prosecution claims, as well as its finding that the litigation privilege was applicable specifically to Edwards's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Epstein, constituted issues of law. DelMonico, 116 So. 3d at 1211 (stating the dete

vices of Florida, Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) 22 Steinberg v. Steinberg, 152 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.

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

out prejudice, which does not constitute a bona-fide termination, one of the six essential elements of a malicious prosecution claim. See Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So.2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Appellant neither addresses nor submits argument as to Appellee's assertion, so this is not addressed in this An

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

ted process; and 3) damage as a result of the conduct. See, e.g., S&I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA. 2010); Valdes v. GAB Robins North America, Inc., 924 So. 2d 862, 867 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). With