IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.¶
CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ,CIA¶
.-¶
CCY¶
-vs-¶
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individual) and J. individually,¶
AS 41 9¶
MOTIO / ' COSTS¶
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs.¶
Defendant/Counter-Phi DLEY J. individually, by and through his undersi g)C ed unsel, hereby files this Motion to Tax Costs pursuant to the First ct Court's Opinion dated November 12, 2015 and Mandate dat tuber I, 2015 (copies attached). Pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.400(a) owing costs were necessarily incurred in the above-styled case:¶
-
- Fill g Fees Fourth District Court of Appeal
-
- Filings Fees Circuit Court
-
- Record-on-Appeal $ 300.00 100.00 227.00
TOTAL $627.00¶
WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court tax the above costs in this cause.¶
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished to all counsel on the attached service list, by email, on December 24, 2015.¶
William B. [REDACTED], Esq.
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA
BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
eservice@searcylaw.com
wbk@searcylaw.com
and
BURLINGTON & ROCKENBACH, P.A.
Courthouse Commons/Suite 350
444 West Railroad Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 721-0400
Attorneys for [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
pmb@FLAppellateLaw.com
kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com¶
By:/s/ Philip M. Burlington
PHILIP M. BURLINGTON
Florida Bar No. 285862¶
/kbt¶
SERVICE LIST¶
E p_a stein v. Rott Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB¶
W. Chester Jr. Esq. W. CHESTER JR., P.A. 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 6554777 wcblaw@aol.com wcbcg®aol.com Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶
Fred Haddad, Esq. FRED HADDAD, P.A. 1 Financial Plaza, Ste. 2612 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 467-6767 haddadfm®aol.com fred@fredhaddadlaw.com dee@fredhaddadlaw.com Attorneys for Jeffrey EpsteinC¶
Mark Nurik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MA NURIK 1 E. Broward Blv te. Fort Lauderdal 301 (954) 745-58 marc®nun Attorne ott Rothstein¶
Jack Goldberger, Esq. ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 S. Australian Ave. Ste. Y400 West Palm Beach, FL (561) 659-8300 jgoldberger@ag smahoney@a Attorneys for J y Epstein¶
Tonjt d Coleman, Esq. 1/%2 DDAD, P.A. 7th Street., Ste. 301 auderdale, FL 33301 4) 467-1223 onja®tonjahaddad.com efiling@tonjahaddad.com Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶
J. Esq. JAFFE, WEISSING, , FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 524-2820 staff.efile@pathtojustice.com brad@pathtojustice.com¶
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT¶
J.¶
Appellant,¶
v.¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, Appellees.¶
No. 4D14-2282¶
(November 12, 20151¶
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifte Beach County; Donald W. Hafele, 502009CA040800XXXXMB. dicial Circuit, Palm L.T. Case No.¶
Philip M. Burlington of Burlington of Searcy Denney Scarola B for appellant. nbach, P.A., and William B. hipley, P.A., West Palm Beach,¶
Paul Morris of The Law Haddad Coleman of To Jeffrey Epstein. Paul Morris, P.A., Miami, and Tonja ad, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee¶
WARNER, J.¶
4¶
J O¶
Appellant shall es a summary judgment holding that his malicious prosecution oaim gainst appellee Epstein was barred by the litigation privilege e Itfial court granted summary judgment based upon Wolfe t So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), which had decided this issue e motion for summary judgment was heard.' However, after urt ruled, our court held to the contrary in Fischer a Debrincat, 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¶
The trial court properly relied on Wolfe at the time, because that case was binding upon the trial court in the absence of interdistrict 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 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 Fischer and Rivernider, we certify that this opi i conflicts with Wolfe.¶
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.¶
TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.¶
Not final until disposition of timey'Jilbd motion for rehearing.¶
CO¶
M A N D A T E¶
from¶
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT¶
This cause having been brought to the Court by appeal, and after due consideration the Court having issued its opinion;¶
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that such further proceedings be had in said cause as may be in accordance with the opinion of this Court, and with the rules of procedure and laws of the State of Florida.¶
WITNESS the Honorable Cory J. Ciklin, Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, and seal of the said Court at West Palm Beach, Florida on this day.¶
DATE: December 01, 2015
CASE NO.: 14-2282
COUNTY OF ORIGIN: Palm Beach
T.C. CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMB¶
STYLE: [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SCOTT ROTHSTEIN¶
¶
Lonn Weissblum¶
LONN WEISSBLUM, Clerk
Fourth District Court of Appeal¶
Served:¶
cc: Fred Haddad
Philip M. Burlington
Jack Alan Goldberger¶
Paul Morris
William B. [REDACTED]
Brad J. [REDACTED]¶
W. Chester [REDACTED]
Tonja Haddad Coleman
Clerk Palm Beach¶