HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013313.jpg

Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 10 of 15

Flea Mkt., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)(citation omitted). The case law is clear that on an
abuse of process claim a “plaintiff must prove that the process was used for an immediate purpose other
than that for which it was designed.” Id. (citation omitted). Where the actions taken by a party in a
particular lawsuit are designed to coerce another into taking some collateral action not properly involved
in the proceeding a claim of abuse of process is stated. Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Ferre,
8636 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985).

In a case for abuse of process, the question of whether the plaintiff’s case satisfies the requisite
elements is largely a question for a jury. See Patrick John McGinley, 21 Fla. Prac., Elements of an Action
§ 50:1 (2013-2014 ed.)(citing Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)).

The usual case of abuse of process involves some form of extortion. Scozari v. Barone, 546 So.
2d 750, 751(Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (citing Bothmann v. Harrington, 458 So. 2d 1163, 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA
1984)). That is exactly what has transpired here. Epstein employed the extraordinary financial resources at
his disposal to intimidate his molestation victims and Edwards into abandoning their legitimate claims or
resolving those claims for substantially less than their just and reasonable value. Consequently, since
Epstein’s sole purpose and ulterior motive for filing the complaint without probable cause was in an effort
to extort, to wit: to force his molestation victims and Edwards to settle for minimal amounts, that filing
and everything subsequently done to pursue the claims constitutes an abuse of process. See Exhs. A at 18-
27, C at 4-7. Because Edwards has conclusively demonstrated that Epstein’s actions in pursuing his
claims were designed to coerce Edwards (and his client) to take some collateral action not properly
involved in the proceedings and did so with an ulterior purpose, summary judgment directed at the abuse
of process claim must fail. The damages suffered by Edwards include: (a) injury to his reputation; (b)
mental anguish, embarrassment and anxiety; (c) fear physical injury to himself and members of his
family; (d) the loss of the value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibility;
and (e) the cost of defending against Epstein’s spurious and baseless claims. All the elements of the

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013313