LETTER.pdf

Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A.
9350 S. Dixie Highway
Suite 1450
Miami, FL 33156
(305) 670-1441
(305) 670-2202 (fax)
paulappeal@gmail.com
www.paulmorrislaw.com
December 10, 2015
Office of the Clerk
Supreme Court of Florida
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
Re:
~
Epstein/Petitioner v. Edwards/Respondent
SC15-_______ ~
Q 8
: I
4D14-2282
t3 ~a
Cl ~·
Sir or Madam:
&~osed for filing please find the petitioner's check for the filing fee of$300.00 and
f file stamped copy of the notice to invoke.
Thank you.
PM/pah
enc.
J\UL MORRIS
Counsel for Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
CASE NO. 4D14-2282
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS,
Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Appellee.
I ---------------- 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 oflaw and certifies conflict with Wolfe v. Foreman, 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
sf Paul Morris
PAUL MORRIS
Counsel for Appellee
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE /
I hereby certify that on this 10th day of December, 2015, a copy of the
foregoing was emailed to those on the list below.
SERVICE LIST:
William B. King
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
sf Paul Morris
-2-

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
tonj a@tonjahaddad.com
j ayme@tonjahaddad.com
Bradley J. Edwards
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards,
Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
425 N. Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
brad@pathtojustice.com
Fred Haddad
Fred Haddad, P.A.
1 Financial Plaza, Ste. 2612
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
haddadfm@aol.com
Mark Nurik
Law Offices of Mark S. Nurik
1 E. Broward Blvd., Ste. 700
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
marc@nuriklaw.com
Jack Goldberger
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
jgoldberger@agwpa.com
W. Chester Brewer, Jr.
W. Chester Brewer, Jr., P.A.
250 S. Australian Ave., Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
wcblaw@aol.com
wcbdiane@yahoo.com
-3-

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS,
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.
King 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
privilege. The trial court granted summary judgment based upon Wolfe v.
Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), which had decided this issue
just before the motion for summary judgment was heard. 1 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 Rivemider 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
1 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 Fi.scher and Rivemider, we certify that this opinion conflicts
with Wolfe.
Reversed and remanded for furlher proceedings.
TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * *
Notfinal until disposition of timely filed motion/or rehearing.
2