HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013402.jpg
1.78 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (motion for leave to assert claim for punitive damages)
File Size:
1.78 MB
Summary
This document is page 9 of a legal motion in the case 'Edwards adv. Epstein' (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). It argues that Jeffrey Epstein's claims linking Edwards to Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme were completely baseless, noting that Epstein voluntarily dismissed the claims right before a summary judgment hearing. The text asserts Edwards had no involvement in the scheme and characterizes Epstein's allegations as lacking substance.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant |
Voluntarily dismissed claims against Edwards; made allegations regarding a Ponzi scheme.
|
| Edwards | Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff |
Subject of the motion; accused by Epstein of involvement in a Ponzi scheme; asserts claims had no factual basis.
|
| Scott Rothstein | Perpetrator |
Ran a Ponzi scheme; Epstein had claims against him.
|
| L.M. | Defendant |
Another defendant in the suit against whom Epstein dismissed claims.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Florida District Court of Appeal |
Cited in case law (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App.).
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of document (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Eve of hearing on Edwards Motion for Summary Judgment
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction based on case law citations (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App.).
|
Relationships (3)
Case name 'Edwards adv. Epstein'; Epstein made claims against Edwards.
Epstein alleged Edwards was involved in Rothstein's Ponzi scheme; document denies this.
Footnote mentions Epstein dismissed claims against L.M.
Key Quotes (4)
"Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against Edwards on the eve of the hearing on Edwards Motion for Summary Judgment."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013402.jpg
Quote #1
"Epstein’s Claim Regarding Edwards Had Absolutely No Factual Basis."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013402.jpg
Quote #2
"Epstein’s allegations regarding Edwards’ involvement in Rothstein’s “Ponzi Scheme” were unsupported and unsupportable because Edwards was simply not involved in any such scheme."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013402.jpg
Quote #3
"The bulk of Epstein’s claims against Edwards hinged on the premise that Edwards was involved in a Ponzi scheme run by Scott Rothstein."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013402.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,967 characters)
Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages
judgment on basis of facts established without dispute). Where the nonmoving party fails to
present evidence rebutting the motion for summary judgment and there is no genuine issue of
material fact, then entry of judgment is proper as a matter of law. See Davis v. Hathaway, 408
So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1982); see also Holl, 191 So. 2d at 43. Faced with these
well-established legal principles, Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against Edwards on
the eve of the hearing on Edwards Motion for Summary Judgment.
present evidence rebutting the motion for summary judgment and there is no genuine issue of
material fact, then entry of judgment is proper as a matter of law. See Davis v. Hathaway, 408
So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1982); see also Holl, 191 So. 2d at 43. Faced with these
well-established legal principles, Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against Edwards on
the eve of the hearing on Edwards Motion for Summary Judgment.
B. Epstein’s Claim Regarding Edwards Had Absolutely No Factual Basis.
This was not a complicated case for granting summary judgment. To the contrary, the
uncontested record clearly established that each and every one of Epstein’s claims against
Edwards lacked any merit whatsoever. 1
uncontested record clearly established that each and every one of Epstein’s claims against
Edwards lacked any merit whatsoever. 1
1. Epstein’s allegations regarding Edwards’ involvement in Rothstein’s “Ponzi
Scheme” were unsupported and unsupportable because Edwards was simply
not involved in any such scheme.
Scheme” were unsupported and unsupportable because Edwards was simply
not involved in any such scheme.
a. Edwards Had No Involvement in the Ponzi Scheme.
The bulk of Epstein’s claims against Edwards hinged on the premise that Edwards was
involved in a Ponzi scheme run by Scott Rothstein. Broad allegations of wrongdoing on the part
of Edwards were scattered willy-nilly throughout the complaint. None of the allegations
provided any substance as to how Edwards actually assisted the Ponzi scheme, and allegations
that he “knew or should have known” of its existence are based upon an impermissible
pyramiding of inferences. In any event, these allegations all fail for one straightforward reason:
involved in a Ponzi scheme run by Scott Rothstein. Broad allegations of wrongdoing on the part
of Edwards were scattered willy-nilly throughout the complaint. None of the allegations
provided any substance as to how Edwards actually assisted the Ponzi scheme, and allegations
that he “knew or should have known” of its existence are based upon an impermissible
pyramiding of inferences. In any event, these allegations all fail for one straightforward reason:
1 The dismissal of Epstein’s claims against Edwards did not affect Epstein’s claims against Scott Rothstein. Epstein
had already chosen to dismiss all of his claims against L.M., the other defendant named in the suit.
9
had already chosen to dismiss all of his claims against L.M., the other defendant named in the suit.
9
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013402
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document