HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013314.jpg

1.77 MB

Extraction Summary

3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal pleading (opposition to motion for summary judgment)
File Size: 1.77 MB
Summary

This document is page 11 of a legal filing titled 'Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment.' It argues that Epstein's voluntary dismissal of previous claims against Edwards constitutes a 'bona fide termination' of proceedings, supporting Edwards' counterclaim for malicious prosecution. The text asserts that Epstein dismissed his claims on the eve of a hearing because he knew he lacked probable cause and verifiable evidence.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Jeffrey Epstein Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Accused of malicious prosecution and abuse of process; voluntarily dismissed previous claims against Edwards.
Edwards Defendant/Counter-Claimant
Filing opposition to Epstein's motion; claiming malicious prosecution by Epstein.
Judge Crow Judge
Issued an Order on March 29, 2012 denying a Motion to Dismiss regarding the issue of Bonafide Termination.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
Third District Court
Court whose decision in Scozari v. Barone is cited as precedent.
Union Oil of California
Cited in case law reference.
Amsco Division
Cited in case law reference.

Timeline (2 events)

2012-03-29
Judge Crow's Order denying Motion to Dismiss re: Issue of Bonafide Termination.
Court
Unknown
Epstein voluntarily dismissed his abuse of process claims against Edwards on the eve of a summary judgment hearing.
Court

Relationships (1)

Jeffrey Epstein Legal Adversaries Edwards
Epstein sued Edwards; Edwards is countersuing for malicious prosecution.

Key Quotes (3)

"Epstein effectively conceded that fact by voluntarily dismissing his claims."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013314.jpg
Quote #1
"Epstein took voluntary dismissal of his claims because he knew he did not have probable cause or an evidentiary basis to support the allegations."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013314.jpg
Quote #2
"Epstein did, in fact, lack probable cause to assert his claims against Edwards"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013314.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,390 characters)

Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 11 of 15
claim for abuse of process have been satisfied. This case, then, falls within the parameters of the Third District's Decision in Scozari v. Barone, supra in which the court reversed the entry of summary judgment for the defendant on claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. With respect to the abuse of process claim, the court stated that "if there was no reasonable basis in law and fact to bring the action to impress a lien on property, and this was done without any reasonable justification under law and to force or compel the appellant to resolve some custody dispute, induce the appellant to pay money, or tie up the appellant's property, then there has been an abuse of process." Id at 752.
There are Disputed Issues of Fact Precluding Summary Judgment on the Claim of Malicious Prosecution
Here, Epstein's voluntary dismissal of his abuse of process claims against Edwards amounted to a bona fide termination of the proceedings. He knew his allegations were unsupported by evidence (See discussion above at pages 3-6). Knowing he lacked any verifiable evidence against Edwards, on the eve of the summary judgment hearing, Epstein effectively conceded that fact by voluntarily dismissing his claims. Hence, it is evident that Epstein took voluntary dismissal of his claims because he knew he did not have probable cause or an evidentiary basis to support the allegations. See Cohen v. Corwin, 980 So. 2d 1153 at 1156 (citing Union Oil of California, Amsco Division v. Watson, 468 So. 2d 349 at 354 (stating that "where a dismissal is taken because of insufficiency of the evidence, the requirement of a favorable termination is met")). Accordingly, the manner of termination reflects on the merits of the case and there was a bona fide termination of Epstein's civil proceeding against Edwards (See Judge Crow's Order of March 29, 2012 denying Motion to Dismiss re: Issue of Bonafide Termination attached as Exhibit "H").
Epstein's only other issue with Edwards' counterclaim for malicious prosecution is that he did not lack probable cause in pursing his claims against Edwards. As established by the record, Epstein did, in fact, lack probable cause to assert his claims against Edwards (See discussion above). Epstein's purported
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013314

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document