Epstein Secrets

gment is proper as a matter of law. See Davis v. Hathaway, 408 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1982

rmined in that action." AMEC Civil, LLC v. State Dept of Transp., So.2d , 2010 WL 1542634 at *2 (Fla. 1n Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984). Obviously, any question of improper "pumping" of a particular case could have been resolved in that very case ra

0 744,427.29 612,524.93 131,902.36 BER1(SHIRE HATHAWAY I 06/08/18 02105118 Coveted Frit In Flirt Out

64 25 64,239,589.65 3,020,938.22 3,059,415.56 3,072,988.85 6,444,920.00 980,850 00 982,800.00 $97,272,547.37 896,985,510.52 896,694,233.76 Pagel of 28 Rated Cacellent Caere Year Since 2007 DAUIAR RATIO COMMUMCAT *NS (JIMA MCC Clewing lamer Feebly I1C sub* evened sabildlerg et The Mak ei

ing the motion for summary judgment and there is no genuine issue of material fact, then entry of judgment is proper as a matter of law. See Davis v. Hathaway, 408 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla, 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1982); see also Holl, 191 So. 2d at 43. , B. Epstein’s Claim Regarding Edwards Have Absolutely No Factua

ned in that action.” AMEC Civil, LLC v. State Dept. of Transp., ___S0.2d__, 2010 WL 1542634 at *2 (Fla. 1* Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984). Obviously, any question of improper “pumping” of a 11 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013380 --- PAGE BREAK --- particular cas