Epstein Secrets

70 So.3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) Grossman v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 14 570 So.2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990

erger, Esq. KITERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue S., Ste. 1400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein 30 Marc S. Nurik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. NURIK One E. Broward Boulevard, Ste. 700 Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein Bradley J. Edwards,

RETIOS BRIAN P. cei.EY KARL L Dont as BROCA S. POWER JAMES W. GUSTAFSON. JR. JACK P. HAL DAVID K. K

Fowler White Burnett, P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 777 S Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6170 Phone: (561)-802-9044 Fax: (561)-802-9976 Marc S. Nurik, Esquire Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-745-5849 Fax: (954)-745-3556 Jack S

arly absolute immunity. See, e.g., Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

33409; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012; and Marc S. Nurik, Esq., Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik, One East Broward Blvd., Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. W:180713kAfTNCPL76.15th

280(c)(1), Ha. R. Civ. P.; compare Medero v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 658 So. 2d 566, 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 19

dale, FL 33301; Jack Alan Goldberger, Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012; Marc S. Nurik, Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik, One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301; and Jack Scarola, Searcy Denney Scarola et al., 21

No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Edwards’ Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment Page 15 of 15 COUNSEL LIST William Chester Brewer, Esquire Marc S. Nurik, Esquire [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected] 250 8S Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik West Palm Beach, FL 33401

than that for which it was designed.” S&J Investments v. Payless Flea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4" Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Biondo v. Powers, 805 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 4" Dist. Ct. App. 2002). As.a consequence, “[w]here the process was used to accomplish the result for which it was intended,