Epstein Secrets

follows: And I 7 8 am going to touch first a little bit on the 8 On behalf of the Defendants: 9 response because they claim that there is 9 JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, 10 additional discovery to be done, but they don't 10 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 11 identify any discovery tha

h first a little bit on the 8 On behalf of the Defendants: 9 response because they claim that there is 9 JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, 10 additional discovery to be done, but they don't 10 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 11 identify any discovery that they wish to do. 2139 Palm Beac

here is no such allegation of a post-issuance 20 case first. 20 act other than service of what was issued under 21 They sued for malicious, Mr. Della-Donna 21 the circumstances. 22 sued for malicious prosecution, abuse of 22 And it goes on and describes abuse of 23 process, and liable. And at page

ired. It's part of the -- that is, it 12 fact and dispute. Furthermore Russell 13 doesn't go to the issue of the motion for 13 established that Della-Donna failed to allege 14 summary judgment. 14 and there was no evidence of any act by Russell 15 Secondly, there is no 772.11 claim in the 15 whic

IFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via e-mail and U.S. Mail this day of October, 2011 to: Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Gol

nd U.S. Mail this day of October, 2011 to: Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley,

. Payless Flea Mkt, 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 411' 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 regard to the first element of the tort of abuse of process, it is axiomatic t

use Edwards' abuse of process claim is based on the filing of allegedly insufficient claims, it fails to state a valid claim for relief. See, e.g., Della-Donna, 512 So. 2d at 1055; McMurray, 425 So. 2d 1208 (counterclaim for abuse of process was properly dismissed with prejudice when based on filing of comp

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via e-mail and U.S. Mail this day of May, 2011 to: Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Gol

l and U.S. Mail this day of May, 2011 to: Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley,

. 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 regard to the first element of the tort of abuse of process, it is axiomatic t

et al. abuse of process.' [Citation omitted] The plaintiff must prove improper use of process after it issues." S&I Invs., 36 So. 3d at 917(quoting Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055-56 (Fla. 411' DCA 1987)). See also Valdes, 924 So. 2d at 867 ("Valdes' failure to allege any improper wi

VICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMl3AG Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. Jack Goldber

Haadad Coleman, Esq. Florida Bar No.: Tonia Haddad. PA 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff EFTA00299007 SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMl3AG Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA Marc Munk, Esq. Bradlcy J. Edwards, Esq. Farmer Jaf

verted process; and 3) damages resulting therefrom. S & I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt, Inc., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (emphasis added); Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 24 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his Second Affirmative Defense, Epstein states that

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via e-mail and U.S. Mail this day of May, 2011 to: Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Gol

l and U.S. Mail this day of May, 2011 to: Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley,

se of process requires proof that the judicial system was misused for an ulterior purpose after an action was filed and process served. See,. e.g., Della-Donna v. Nova University, Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); McMurray v. U-Haul Co, Inc., 425 So. 2d 1208, 1209-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Acco

rdale, Florida 33301 954.467.1223 954.337.3716 (facsimile) Attorneys for Plaintiff EFTA00292566 SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800)OOCXMBAG Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P

VICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800)OOCXMBAG Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Be

erted process; and 3) damages resulting therefrom. S & I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt., Inc., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (emphasis added); Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). EFTA00292563 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his Second Affirmative Defense, Epst