Epstein Secrets

SLIFKA,ALFRED A LORBER,STANLEY H MEYER,ELIZA S HIRSCH,CARL SIKLOSSY,ELINOR

Y,TALBOTT B ROBERTSON JR,HARRISON M FORMAN,MARCIA L VANHELLEMONT,ROBERT W KAPN

Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, P.A., 613 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (emphasis supplied); see also Rivernider v. Meyer, 174 So. 3d 602, 604-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (trial court properly entered summary judgment against malicious prosecution claimant where underlying

heard argument solely as to the litigation privilege. 2 EFTA00808206 the litigation privilege based upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Final judgment was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his

402 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) 21 R.H. Ciccone Properties, Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 141 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 15 Rivernider v. Meyer, Case Number 4D14-819 10 SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) 22 Steinberg v. Steinberg, 152 So.

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 67 (FIa. 3d DCA 2013) passim Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) 19, 20, 21 iii EFTA00589620 PRELIMINARY STATEM

69 So. 3d at 1206 (quoting Alamo Rent—A—Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So.2d 1352, 1355 (Fla.1994)). The holding in Fischer was restated in Rivernider v. Meyer, No. 4D14-819, 2015 WL 5244635 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 9, 2015) as follows: -10- EFTA00612492 Recently, in Fischer v. Debrincat, 40 Fla. Weekly D163

rocess claims filed against Epstein by the appellant, Bradley J. Edwards. The trial judge relied in part upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that the litigation privilege applies to causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process

. Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, M., 613 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (emphasis supplied); see also Rivernider v. Meyer, 174 So. 3d 602, 604-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (trial court properly entered summary judgment against malicious prosecution claimant where underlying p

order granting summary judgment in favor of Epstein upon application of the litigation privilege based upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Final judgment was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his

o. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) 21 R.H. Ciccone Properties, Ina v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 141 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 15 Rivernider v. Meyer, Case Number 4D14-819 10 SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) 22 Steinberg v. Steinberg, 152 So.

ldes 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. 3d 67 (FIa. 3d DCA 2013) passim Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) 19, 20, 21 iii EFTA00714923 PRELIMINARY STATE

r the prosecution and bona fide termination in the plaintiff's favor are two of six elements of a claim for malicious prosecution. See Rivernider v. Meyer, 174 So.3d 602, 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (noting the six elements to a malicious prosecution claim: 1) the commencement of a judicial proceeding; 2)

issue was one for the jury. However, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Epstein based on the litigation privilege, relying on Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Accordingly, Final Judgment was entered in favor of Epstein. 2 EFTA00613502 Edwards appealed the summary judgm

Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, P.A., 613 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (emphasis supplied); see also Rivernider v. Meyer, 174 So. 3d 602, 604-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (trial court properly entered summary judgment against malicious prosecution claimant where underlying p

EFTA00583962 summary judgment in favor of Epstein upon application of the litigation privilege based upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Final judgment was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his