IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT¶
CASE NO. 4D14-2282¶
J. S¶
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 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. 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¶
Fax (305) 670-2202 paulappeal®gmail.com paul@paulmorrislaw.com¶
sl Paul Morris PAUL MORRIS Counsel for Appellee¶
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶
Ihereby certify that on this 10th day of December, 2015, acopy of the foregoing was emailed to those on the list below.¶
s/ Paul Morris¶
SERVICE LIST:¶
William B. 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¶
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301¶
jayme®tonjahaddad.com¶
J. Mr Jaffe, Weissing,¶
Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.¶
425 N. Andrews Ave., Ste. 2¶
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301¶
Fred Haddad¶
Fred Haddad, P.A.¶
1 Financial Plaza, Ste. 2612¶
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301¶
Mark Nurik¶
Law Offices of Mark S. Nurik¶
1 E. Broward Blvd., Ste. 700¶
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301¶
Jack Goldberger¶
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.¶
250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400¶
West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶
jgoldberger®agwpa.com¶
W. Chester Jr.¶
W. Chester, Jr., P.A.¶
250 S. Australian Ave., Suite 1400¶
West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶
wcbdiane®yahoo.com¶
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT¶
J. Ma 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. 502009CA040800)OCXXMB.¶
Philip M. Burlington of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., and William B. of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.¶
Paul Morris of The Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A., Miami, and Tonja Haddad Coleman of Tonja Haddad, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Jeffrey Epstein.¶
WARNER, J.¶
Appellant challenges asummary judgment holding that his malicious prosecution claim against appellee Epstein was barred by the litigation rivile e. The trial court granted summary judgment based upon Wolfe v. , 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), which had decided this issue just before the motion for summary judgment was heard.' However, after the trial court ruled, our court held to the contrary in Fischer v. Debrincat, 169So. 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 amalicious prosecution¶
IThe 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 opinion conflicts with Wolfe.¶
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.¶
TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.¶
* *¶
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.¶
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, 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. of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.¶
Paul Morris of The Law Offices of Paul 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 el/e. The trial court granted summary judgment based upon Wolfe v. , 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), which had decided this issue just before the motion for summary judgment was heard.' 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¶
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 arc 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 Rivemider, we certify that this opinion conflicts with Wolfe.¶
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.¶
TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.¶
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.¶
¶
Ihereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of Instrument filed In my office.¶
Lonn Weissblum, CLERK DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORI DISTRICT¶
Per ty 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: J. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SCOTT ROTHSTEIN¶
Case No: 4D14-2282¶
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. 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 —¶
If there are any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this Office.¶
Sincerely,¶
LONN WEISSBLUM¶
Clerk of the Court By: Holly Deputy et. •¶