522 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2009 Page 3 of 4 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 3 Defendant to respond to the Second Amended Complaint. Robert D. •ritton, Jr. Attorney f r Defendant Epstein Certificate of Se ce I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronicall

ecide to assert against Molyneux Studio; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs Jeffrey Epstein and L.S.J., LLC, shall file proof of service of the Second Amended Complaint on Molyneux Studio within thirty (30) days of filing the Second Amended Complaint; and it is further ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be dir

Edwards filed a "Supplement" to his Motion for Separate Trials (App. 15). In his Supplement, Edwards advised for the first time that no default on the Second Amended Complaint had been entered in Epstein's case against Rothstein. In other words, at the time Edwards filed his motion to set case for trial, 7 EFTA00793699

m., in a "Supplement" to his Motion for Separate Trials filed just the day before (App. 14), Edwards asserted for the first time that no default on the Second Amended Complaint had been entered in Epstein's case against Rothstein. In other words, at the time Edwards filed his motion to set case for trial, the case was not

recognized the case was not at issue at the time the motion to 5 Epstein simultaneously filed his Motion for Default Against Defendant Rothstein on the Second Amended Complaint. (App. 17). Pursuant to Rule 1.440, the "action" will be at issue 20 days after the circuit court grants Epstein's motion for default. Thereafter,

longer applied. Mr. Edwards pointed out to this Court and to Mr. Epstein -- he is absolutely correct -- that Mr. Epstein's operative complaint is the Second Amended Complaint to which there is no default. What rule 2.440 tolls this Court to do is to look at the time that Mr. Edwards moved -- it's maybe a notice to set

15 EFTA00808533 C. Epstein Waived the Right to Rely on Rule 1.440 Epstein has waived reliance on Rule 1.440. As discussed above, Epstein filed the Second Amended Complaint on August 22, 2011. Rothstein never answered the complaint. Pursuant to Rule 1.500(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, it was incumbent upon Epst

ded Complaint, which was filed on August 21, 2011. 4. Edwards, however, is not a party to that case as Epstein voluntarily dismissed Edwards from the Second Amended Complaint on August 16, 2012.' That point alone nullifies Epstein's entire argument that Edwards' Motion to Set Case for Trial was not ripe. Rule 1.440(b), o

ended Complaint which contained a single count against Edwards for abuse of process, and a single count against Rothstein. Edwards moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. At the September 28, 2011 hearing on Edwards' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the Court explained that abuse of process required -

additional parties or additional causes of action contemplated; but it would serve all parties' interests, Plaintiff respectfully submits, to have the Second Amended Complaint in place for when the stay is lifted. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Eric Bluestein Florida Bar # 58240 /s/ David I. Schoen Counsel for Plaintiff