• • out O fi JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. • SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and ro J. individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. #### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION -AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB Cos # • • MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT COMES NOW, the Counter-Defe PREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorney, and requests that enter the proposed Order on Motion Summary Judgment attached hereto and as ds would show: - I. A hearing was h ore the Court on January 27, 2014 regarding EPSTEIN's Motion for Summary Judg ib"' - 2. granted EPSTEIN's motion. ourt directed the undersigned attorney to prepare a proposed order and directed that certain\`Ignguage be included in the order. - 4. The undersigned obtained a transcript of the hearing and followed the direction of the court in preparing the proposed order attached hereto as Exhibit "A". - 5. The attorney for Counter-Plaintiff has objected to the proposed order and suggested additional language to which Counter-Defendant cannot agree. 6. It therefore becomes necessary that the court review portions of the transcript and the proposed order and enter an order that the Court deems appropriate. WHEREFORE, Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, requests that this Court cntcr an order regarding its ruling on Counter-Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has be ished by eserviec to those listed on the attached Service List, this 41h day of FebruaryC5 > r C.) /s/ W. C W. CHESTER JR. Florida Bar 8 W. Ch Jr., F.A. Attorn ter-Defendant Sui an Avenue South in Beach, Florida 33401 ne: 561-655-4777 simile: 561-835-8691 rimazy email: wcblaw®Itol.corn, Secondary email: wcbca@uol.com O' # SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB-AG Jack Scarola, Esquire isx4searevlaw.com; pieg@searcvlaw•coM Searcy Denney Scarola et al 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldberger, Esquire igoldberger@agwpa.com;smahoncy@iagwoa.com Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik, Esquire 1 East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 marc@nuriklaw.com J. Esquire Staff.efile@pathtojustice.com Jaffe Weissing 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 @fredhaddadlaw.com Fred Haddad, Esquire dee fred®fredhaddadla m 1 Financial Plaza Ft. Laud 01301 Suite 2612 Tonja Had Coleman, Esquire tonja@toniabaddad.com; efiling@tonjahaddad.com Law Offices of Tonja Haddad, P.A. 315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 ### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION -AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800)OCXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and J. individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. (\* SA # ORDER GRANTING CO AFENDANT, ,IEFFREY EPSTEIN'S. MOTTO St MARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE came before the court r-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, Motion for Summary Judgment regarding F. h Amended Counterclaim filed herein by Counter-Plaintiff and the court having iewv c file and applicable precedent, having heard argument of counsel and being oche advised in the premises, it is hereupon #### ORDE JUDGED: 1. IN filed suit against Mr. and Mr. thereafter Sled a Co against Mr. EPSTEIN. Mr. EPSTEIN later dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. The Counterclaim proceeded and went through several amendments. The Fourth Amended Counterclaim at issue here contains two causes of action. Those causes of action arc abuse of process and malicious prosecution. 1. The issue before the court is whether the absolute litigation privilege applies to causes of action for both abuse of process and malicious prosecution. 3. The court has reviewed Levin. Middlebrooks. Moves & Mitchell. v. U.S. Fire Ins. 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalia Raymer. & Frappier v. M, 950 Sold 380 (Fla. 2007) and Wolfe v. M, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013 The court fords these cases to be not only persuasive but binding. The court is bound by th din Levin, that all actions occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, so 1 i act has some relation to the proceeding, arc absolutely privileged. This proposition ed in Echevarria. The Third District Court of Appeal in Wolfe, quoting in from lichevarria, found specifically that the litigation privilege applies to malic' ution claims and acts occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, if tho \a some relation to the proceeding. 4, During the hearing on thispgtter,Wtvas conceded by counsel for Counter-Plaintiff that all of the allegations made in claim are of acts occurring duri urse of a judicial proceeding and bear some relation to the proceeding. use of process claim and the malicious prosecution 5. cotlfytherefore finds that the absolute privilege applies to both the abuse of process elm alicious prosecution claims made herein. 1. The Counter-Plaintiff urged the court that Olson v. =, 961 So.2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), is in conflict with Wolfe and that this conflict would allow this court to "peruse" other issues. However, the court finds Olson inapplicable because that case dealt with extra judicial false statements that were made to a police officer. The statements were not made during the course of a Copies furnished to those on the attached service list. CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB judicial proceeding and were therefore not privileged. For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of, 2014. CIRCUIT COURT' JUI.X.p ### SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB-AG W. Chester =, Jr., Esquire weblaw(q)a n. wcbcg@aol.esm W. Chester Jr., P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jack Scarola, Esquire Searcy Denney Scarola et al 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. jsx@searcvlawan; mep@searcvlaw.com \