Epstein Secrets

ceedings. Under Florida law, there is no immunity for acts undertaken in judicial proceedings that bear no relation to those proceedings. See, e.g., Levin, Middlebrooks, Mahie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 616, 608 (1994). It is for a fact finder to determine wheth

ng to the Order granting additional time, not only for an extension of time but also for a stay in the preparation of the privilege log pending its Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard by this Court (A: 16). Edwards filed a similar motion with this Court which is presently set for hearing on January 27, 2011. On Decem

ntitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fla. R.Civ. P. 1.510(c). This court, in applying the Florida Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Rayner, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole,

cess and malicious prosecution. Both causes of action were premised upon Epstein's initial filing of his lawsuit against Edwards. Epstein filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting therein that both the abuse of process claim and the malicious prosecution claim filed by Edwards against Epstein were barred by the lit

on. Id. (emphasis added). The court's focus was on "whether the acts alleged `occurred[ed] during the course of a judicial proceeding.'" Id. (citing Levin, 639 So. 2d at 608). The court, relying upon Florida Supreme Court Cases, held that because the acts that formed the basis of EFTA00582878 the su

cess and malicious prosecution. Both causes of action were premised upon Epstein's initial filing of his lawsuit against Edwards. Epstein filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting therein that both the abuse of process claim and the malicious prosecution claim filed by Edwards against Epstein were barred by the liti