EFTA01084920.pdf

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE H1- I EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN Plaintiff, AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG and BRADLEY J, EDWARDS, individually. JUDGE: CROW Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.110 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files this Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to DefendanUCounter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards's ("Edwards") Fourth Amended Counterclaim ("Counterclaim"), and states: 1. Epstein admits that the Counterclaim alleges an amount within the jurisdictional purview of the Court, but denies that Edwards is entitled to said amount. 2. Epstein is without knowledge as to Edwards's residential status, but admits that he is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. 3. Epstein admits that he is sui juris, but denies that he is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. 4. Epstein admits that he entered into a plea agreement that resulted in a felony conviction. Epstein further admits that the terms and conditions of the agreement speak for themselves. To the extent that Edwards has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 4 of his Counterclaim, Epstein denies the allegations. EFTA01084920  5. Epstein admits that he was a party to civil actions brought forth by purported victims, but is without knowledge as to any further investigation by federal law enforcement, or Edwards's relationship with any other purported victims and therefore denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof. 6. Epstein admits that, during certain times throughout the litigation, he asserted his rights against self-incrimination as afforded to him by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Epstein denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 6 and demands strict proof thereof. 7. Epstein denies Paragraph 7, except for the allegation therein stating that Edwards is involved in pending litigation in Federal Court under the Federal Crime Victims' Right's Act. 8. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 8 and demands strict proof thereof. 9. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 9 and demands strict proof thereof. 10. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 10 and demands strict proof thereof. 11. Epstein admits that some of the causes of action filed by him against Edwards are delineated in Paragraph 11 and its subparts. To the extent that Edwards has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 11 of his Counterclaim, Epstein denies the allegations.' 12. Epstein admits that in one of his Complaints he alleged some of the causes of action against Edwards as specifically stated in Paragraph 11 and its subparts, but denies that he has Edwards fails to attach a copy of Epstein's Complaint or even reference the version of the Complaint to which he refers in this allegation. 2 EFTA01084921 ever asserted a cause of action for Civil Theft against Edwards as alleged in Paragraph 12. To the extent that Edwards has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision of Epstein's "Complaint" in Paragraph 12 of his Counterclaim,2 Epstein denies the allegations. Epstein further denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 12 and demands strict proof thereof. 13. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 13 and its subparts and demands strict proof thereof. With respect to subsection (d) of Paragraph 13, Epstein further denies that Edwards's actions were afforded absolute protection under the litigation privilege. See Delmonico v Traynor, 38 FLW S 106 (February 14, 2013). 14. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 14 and demands strict proof thereof. 15. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 15 and demands strict proof thereof. 16. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 16 and demands strict proof thereof. 17. Epstein denies each and every allegation and claim for damages that is contained in Paragraph 17, including its subparts, and demands strict proof thereof. Epstein denies that Edwards is entitled to any demand made in his "WHEREFORE" clause, including any assertion of alleged Punitive Damages. 18. Epstein admits that the Counterclaim alleges an amount within the jurisdictional purview of the Court, but denies that Edwards is entitled to said amount. 2 Edwards fails to attach a copy of Epstein's Complaint or even reference the version of the Complaint to which he refers in this allegation. 3 EFTA01084922  19. Epstein is without knowledge as to Edwards' residential status, but admits that he is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. 20. Epstein admits that he is sui finis, but denies that he is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. 21. Epstein admits that he entered into a plea agreement that resulted in a felony conviction. Epstein further admits that the terms and conditions of the agreement speak for themselves. To the extent that Edwards has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 21 of his Counterclaim, Epstein denies the allegations. 22. Epstein admits that he was a party to civil actions brought forth by purported victims, but is without knowledge as to any further investigation by federal law enforcement, or Edwards's relationship with any other purported victims and therefore denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof. 23. Epstein admits that, during certain times throughout the litigation, he asserted his rights against self-incrimination as afforded to him by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Epstein denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 23 and demands strict proof thereof. 24. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 24 and demands strict proof thereof. 25. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 25 and demands strict proof thereof. 26. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 26 and demands strict proof thereof. 4 EFTA01084923  27. Epstein admits that some of the claims initially filed by him against Edwards are delineated in Paragraph 27 and its subparts. To the extent that Edwards has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 27 of his Counterclaim, Epstein denies the allegations.; 28. Epstein admits that in one of his Complaints he alleged some of the causes of action against Edwards as specifically stated in Paragraph 27 and its subparts, but denies that he has ever asserted a cause of action for Civil Theft against Edwards as alleged in Paragraph 28. To the extent that Edwards has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision of Epstein's "Complaint" in Paragraph 28 of his Counterclaim,4 Epstein denies the allegations. Epstein denies the remaining allegations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof. 29. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 29, including its subparts, and demands strict proof thereof. With respect to subsection (d) of Paragraph 29, Epstein further denies that Edwards's actions were afforded absolute protection under the litigation privilege. See Dehnonico v Traynor, 38 FLW S 106 (February 14, 2013). 30. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 30 and demands strict proof thereof. 31. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 31 and demands strict proof thereof. 32. Epstein admits that he amended his Complaint over the course of the litigation, and that some counts contained in his Complaint were dismissed by the Court without prejudice. However, Epstein denies that this constitutes abandonment of his claims and/or a bona fide 3 Edwards fails to either attach the Complaint to his Counterclaim or reference the specific Complaint to which he is referring in Paragraph 27. Edwards fails to either attach the Complaint to his Counterclaim or reference the specific Complaint to which he is referring in Paragraph 28. 5 EFTA01084924 termination of his claims in Edwards's favor. Epstein denies any and all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 32 and demands strict proof thereof. 33. Epstein denies each and every allegation and claim for damages that is contained in Paragraph 33, including its subparts, and demands strict proof thereof. Epstein denies that Edwards is entitled to any demand made in his "WHEREFORE" clause, including any assertion of alleged Punitive Damages. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his First Affirmative Defense, Epstein states that Edwards' Abuse of Process claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as is required under Rule 1.110 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Edwards did not, nor will he ever be able to, assert the three requisites required to properly plead same; to wit: 1) an illegal, improper, or perverted use of process after it issues ; 2) an ulterior motive or purpose in exercising the illegal, improper, or perverted process; and 3) damages resulting therefrom. S & I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt, Inc., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (emphasis added); Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his Second Affirmative Defense, Epstein states that Edwards' Malicious Prosecution claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as is required under Rule 1.110 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the requisite of a "bone-fide termination of the original proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff' as delineated by the Florida Supreme Court as one of the legally-mandated elements to bring forth a Malicious Prosecution claim, has not, nor can it, be satisfied. See Alamo rent-A-Car v. Mancusi, 632 So. 6 EFTA01084925 2d 1352, 1355 (Fla. 1994). The "original proceeding" to which Edwards refers in his Counterclaim is, in fact, the case Epstein voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and could re-file at any time. A "bona-fide termination" would prohibit re-filing. As such, there has not been the required "ending in a manner indicating [Edwards'] innocence of the charges or allegations contained in the first suit." See Doss v. Bank of America, In, 857 So. 2d 991, 994 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). See also Yoder v. Adriatico, 459 So. 2d 449, 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (stating that the tort of malicious prosecution requires, as an element, the prior termination of that claim and therefore malicious prosecution may not be brought as a counterclaim). Indeed, it is well-settled law that an action for Malicious Prosecution cannot be filed until the original action is concluded, and that counts of a Complaint that are dismissed without prejudice are not deemed a "bona fide termination" in that party's favor. "Where dismissal is on technical grounds, for procedural reasons, or any other reason not consistent with the guilt of the accused, it does not constitute a favorable determination." Union Oil of California v. John Watson, 468 So. 2d 349 (3d DCA 1985). Accordingly, Edwards fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his Third Affirmative Defense, Epstein states that Edwards' Counterclaim fails to properly plead his damages as required under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Miami National Bank v. Nunez, 541 So. 2d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (stating that a litigant cannot recover as damages his own time for participating in a litigation when counsel is engaged to represent him). Edwards further pleads damages for injury to his reputation, mental anguish, anxiety, and embarassment, which are impermissible and improperly plead. 7 EFTA01084926 Finally, Edwards fails to properly plead punitive damages as required by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Most importantly, however, Epstein states that Edwards has not, nor will he, suffer any damages as a result of any actions allegedly taken by Epstein. In fact, this litigation with Epstein catapulted Edwards from an unknown solo practitioner to a partner at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler. Moreover, Edwards still utilizes his litigious association with Mr. Epstein at his new firm Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos, & Lehrman, both on its firm website and firm Facebook page, to disparage Epstein, to seek new clients on whose behalf he can sue Epstein, to attract additional plaintiffs for whom he can file suit, and to achieve notoriety with the press. See Composite Exhibit A attached hereto. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his Fourth Affirmative Defense, Epstein asserts that he is afforded absolute immunity pursuant to the "Litigation Privilege" because his actions were connected with, relevant to, and material to, the cause at hand. The Litigation Privilege protects actions taken that are related to the judicial proceeding. Litigation privilege "arises immediately upon the doing of any act required or permitted by law in the due course of the judicial proceedings or as necessarily preliminary thereto." Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1992). This absolute immunity afforded to Epstein pursuant to the Litigation Privilege appears on the face of the Counterclaim as filed by Edwards. As such, Edwards is barred from proceeding with this litigation. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his Fifth Affirmative Defense, Epstein asserts that the causes of action described in Edwards's Fourth Amended Counterclaim were commenced based upon the good faith 8 EFTA01084927 advice of an attorney, Roy Black, Esq. Royal Trust Bank, N.A. v. Von Zamft, 511 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Epstein specifically reserves the right herein to amend these defenses and plead other affirmative defenses that may become known during his continuing investigation of this action and during discovery in this case. WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served, via electronic service, to all parties on the attached service list, this September 9, 2013. Is/ Tonja Haddad Coleman Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 176737 Tonja Haddad, PA 5315 SE 7'h Street Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (facsimile) Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 EFTA01084928  SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA0408003OOOCMBAG Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA 250 Australian Ave. South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Fred Haddad, Esq. 1 Financial Plaza Suite 2612 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esquire Law Offices of Tonja Haddad, P.A. 315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA01084929