IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

# FOURTH DISTRICT

CASE NO. 4Dl4-2282

BRADLEY J. EDWARDS,

Appellant,

V.

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Appellee.

## NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

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 of the 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 of law and certifies conflict with Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Respectfully submitted,

RECEIVED

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

12/10/2015

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:

WilliamB. 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 OFAPPEAL OFTHE STATE OF FLORIDA

# 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. Burlington of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., and William B. King of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Paul Morris of The Law Offices ofPaul Morris, P.A., Miami, and Tonja

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

bindingupon the trial courtin the absence ofinterdistrict conflict. See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992).

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

Epstein suggests thatthis case could be decided on a tipsy coachman analysis, ashe alleges thatallthe elementsof the cause of actionwere not present. However, the trial court specificallyfound thatmaterial 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 Fischer and Rivernider, we certify that this opinion conflicts with Wolfe.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.

*

Not final untildisposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

2

# DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 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. Burlington of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., andWilliam B. KingofSearcyDenneyScarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., WestPalmBeach, for appellant.

Paul Morris of The Law Offices ofPaul Morris, P.A., Miami, and Tonja Haddad Coleman of Tonja Haddad, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Jeffrey Epstein.

## 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 bindingupon the trial courtin the absence ofinterdistrict conflict. SeePardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 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, ashe alleges thatall the elements of the cause of actionwere not present. However, the trial court specifically found thatmaterial issuesof 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 Fischer and Rivernider, we certify that this opinion conflicts with Wolfe.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.

*

Not final untildisposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

2

The image shows the seal for the Fourth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida. The seal contains the words "DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA" around the border and "SAT CITO SI RECTE" and "FOURTH DISTRICT" in the center. An image is also in the center that contains Lady Justice with scales and an eagle.

I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of instrument filed in my office.
Lonn Weissblum, CLERK
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
Per <signature>
Deputy Clerk

# FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
1525 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
(561) 242-2000

Date: December 10, 2015

Case Name: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SCOTT ROTHSTEIN
Case No: 4D 14-2282
Trial Court No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMB
Trial Court Judge: HON. DONALD HAFELE

Dear Mr. Tomasino:

Attached is a certified copy of a Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction/Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to Rule 9.120, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Attached also is this Court's opinion or decision relevant to this case.

[ ] The filing fee prescribed by Section 25.241(3), Florida Statutes, was received by this court and will be mailed.
[x] The filing fee prescribed by Section 25.241(3), Florida Statutes, was not received by this court.
[ ] Petitioner/Appellant has been previously determined insolvent by the circuit court or our court.
[ ] Petitioner/Appellant has already filed, and this court has granted, petitioner/appellant’s Motion to proceed without payment of costs in this case.
[ ] Petitioner/Appellant filed Notice via EDCA and the fee has not been received by this court.

No filing fee is required in the underlying case in this court because it was:
[ ] A Summary Appeal (Rule 9.141)
[ ] From the Unemployment Appeals Commission
[ ] A Habeas Corpus Proceeding
[ ] A Juvenile Case
[ ] Other – <empty>

If there are any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this Office.

Sincerely,
LONN WEISSBLUM
Clerk of the Court
By: <signature>
Holly Davis Deputy Clerk
documents/doj-76a8ddf630eb6f73.pdf
{}