HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013312.jpg
1.87 MB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document (opposition to motion for summary judgment)
File Size:
1.87 MB
Summary
Page 9 of 15 from a legal filing in the case of Edwards vs. Epstein (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). The document argues that the 'litigation privilege' should not protect Epstein from claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process because his actions were malicious, unfounded, and targeted the Plaintiff's counsel without a legitimate judicial goal. It distinguishes Epstein's actions as an individual party from legal precedents involving attorneys.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | Defendant |
Accused of malicious prosecution and abuse of process; described as carrying out extraordinary actions against Plaint...
|
| Edwards | Plaintiff |
Filing opposition to Epstein's motion; asserts claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Epstein.
|
| Plaintiff's counsel | Attorney |
Target of Epstein's 'course of action' unrelated to legitimate judicial goals.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court |
Referenced regarding the 'Levin' decision.
|
|
| Third District |
Referenced regarding legal precedents on litigation privilege.
|
|
| Fourth District |
Referenced regarding legal precedents on litigation privilege.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Origin of the document stamp (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013312).
|
Key Quotes (3)
"Epstein’s reliance on Wolfe is misplaced."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013312.jpg
Quote #1
"None of the cases involved the extraordinary actions of an individual party like Epstein who carried out a course of action against Plaintiff’s counsel with a singular purpose unrelated to any legitimate judicial goal."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013312.jpg
Quote #2
"Under the compelling facts of this case, where the actions of Epstein are coupled with the elements of malice and absence of probable cause arising from the unfounded filing of the claims against Edwards, the litigation privilege should not have any applicability to the abuse of process claim asserted by Edwards."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013312.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document