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

IOUS PROSECUTION. The trial court properly ruled that Summary Judgment was warranted in this case. The undisputed facts, as presented both through Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment and at oral argument on his Motion, coupled with the law germane to the issues in this matter, established that the litigation

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

IOUS PROSECUTION. The trial court properly ruled that Summary Judgment was warranted in this case. The undisputed facts, as presented both through Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment and at oral argument on his Motion, coupled with the law germane to the issues in this matter, established that the litigation

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

IOUS PROSECUTION. The trial court properly ruled that Summary Judgment was warranted in this case. The undisputed facts, as presented both through Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment and at oral argument on his Motion, coupled with the law germane to the issues in this matter, established that the litigation

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.

12 CONCLUSION In reliance upon the argument submitted above and the case law cited herein, Appellee submits that the trial court's Order granting Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment should be affirmed. CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE AND STYLE This Brief is typed using Times New Roman 14 point, a font which is no