Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A.

9350 S. Dixie Highway
Suite 1450
Miami, FL 33156
(305) 670-1441
(305) 670-2202 (fax)
paulappeal@gmail.com 
www.paulmorrislaw.com

December 10, 2015

Office of the Clerk
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925

Re: Epstein/Petitioner v. Edwards/Respondent
SC15-
4D14-2282

JOHN A. TOMASINO

FILED

DEC 14 2015

SUPREME COURT

Sir or Madam:

Endlosed for filing please find the petitioner's check for the filing fee of $300.00 and LERK, a file stamped copy of the notice to invoke.

Thank you.
PM/pah
enc.

Very truly yours,
<signature>
PAUL MORRIS
Counsel for Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein

# IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

CASE NO. 4D14-2282

BRADLEY J. EDWARDS,

Appellant,

V.

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Appellee.

## NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION

NOTICE IS GIVEN that the appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, invokes the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida to review the decision of this Court rendered November 12, 2015. The decision is within the discretionary jurisdiction ofthe Supreme Court of Florida because it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or the supreme court on the same question oflaw and certifies conflict with Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla; 3d DCA 2013).

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL MORRIS, P.A.
9350  S.  Dixie Highway
Suite 1450
Miami, FL 33156
Florida Bar No. 193769
Tel. (305) 670-1441

RECEIVED, 12/10/2015 10:04 AM, Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal

Fax (305) 670-2202
paulappeal@gmail.com
paul@paulmorrislaw.com

s/ Paul Morris
PAUL MORRIS
Counsel for Appellee

# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 10th day of December, 2015, a copy of the foregoing was emailed to those on the list below.

s/ Paul Morris

SERVICE LIST:

William B. King
Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart
& Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
wbk@searcylaw.com

Philip M. Burlington
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.
Courthouse Commons/Suite 350
444 W. Railroad Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
pmb@FLAppellateLaw.com 
kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com

Tonja Haddad Coleman
Tonja Haddad Coleman, P.A.
5315 SE 7th Street
Suite 301

-2-

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
tonja@tonjahaddad.com
jayme@tonjahaddad.com

BradleyJ. Edwards 
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards,
Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
425 N. Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
brad@pathtojustice.com

Fred Haddad
Fred Haddad, P.A.
1 Financial Plaza, Ste. 2612
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
haddadfm@aol.com

Mark Nurik
Law Offices of  Mark  S.  Nurik 
1  E.  Broward Blvd., Ste. 700
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
marc@nuriklaw.com

Jack Goldberger
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250  S.  Australian Ave., Ste. 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
jgoldberger@agwpa.com

W.  Chester Brewer, Jr.
W.  Chester Brewer, Jr., P.A.
250  S.  Australian Ave., Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
wcblaw@aol.com 
wcbdiane@yahoo.com

-3-

# DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OFFLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

BRADLEY J. EDWARDS,
Appellant,

V.

JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SCOTT ROTHSTEIN,
Appellees.

No.  4D14-2282

[November 12, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Donald W. Hafele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB.

Philip M. Burlingtonof Burlington& Rockenbach, P.A., andWilliam B. Kingof Searcy DenneyScarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Paul Morris of The Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A., Miami, andTonja Haddad Coleman of Tonja Haddad, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee JeffreyEpstein.

## WARNER, J.

Appellant challenges a summary judgment holding that his malicious prosecution claim against appellee Epstein was barred by the litigation privilege. The trial court granted summary judgment based upon Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), which had decided this issue just before the motion for summary judgment was heard.¹ However, after the trial court ruled, our court held to the contrary in Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204, 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and certified conflict with Wolfe to the supreme court. See also Rivernider v. Meyer, 174 So. 3d 602, 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (same). As the issue is the same in this case, we hold that the litigation privilege does not bar a malicious prosecution

1 The trial court properly relied on Wolfe at the time, because that case was binding uponthetrial courtin the absence ofinterdistrictconflict. See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d665, 666 (Fla. 1992).

cause of action where all the elements of malicious prosecution are present.

Epstein suggests that this case could be decided on a tipsy coachman analysis, as he alleges that all the elements of the cause of action were not present. However, the trial court specifically found that material issues of fact remained as to the elements of the claim. Based upon the facts presented and the inferences which may be drawn from those facts, we will not disturb the trial court's evaluation.

Just as in Fi.scher andRivemider,we certify that this opinion conflicts with Wolfe.

Reversed and remanded for furlher proceedings.

TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Notfinal until disposition of timely filed motion/or rehearing.

2
documents/doj-78f5f0cfc091a859.pdf
{}