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

iii EFTA00589620 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This matter arises from the Appellant, Bradley Edwards's appeal of the trial court's final Order granting Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. In this brief, the parties will be referred to as they appear before this Court or by the party's proper name. References to the Record will be ma

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

iii EFTA00714923 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This matter arises from the Appellant, Bradley Edwards's appeal of the trial court's final Order granting Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. In this brief, the parties will be referred to as they appear before this Court or by the party's proper name. References to the Record will be ma

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

iii EFTA00613589 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This matter arises from the Appellant, Bradley Edwards's appeal of the trial court's final Order granting Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. In this brief, the parties will be referred to as they appear before this Court or by the party's proper name. References to the Record will be ma

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.

th the court or quasi-judicial body'). Id. at *2. See also Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250, 1276 (11th Cir. 2004). In its Order on Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, the trial court also correctly determined that "the cases cited by Edwards [in his opposition to Summary Judgment] involved malicious prosecution