EFTA01112583.pdf

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO. 4D14-2282 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, -vs- JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE FOR PURPOSES OF SCHEDULING ORAL ARGUMENT AND NOTICE OF CASE WITH RELATED ISSUE BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant in Edwards v. Epstein, Case No. 4D14-2282, hereby files this Motion to Consolidate the appeal in his case with the appeal in Rivemider v. Meyer, Case No. 4D14-0819 for purposes of oral argument. The Edwards appeal involves one issue: whether the litigation privilege bars an action for malicious prosecution. The Rivemider v. Meyer appeal involves four issues, however the first two issues, as framed in the Initial Brief encompass the same issue as in the Edwards' appeal: Point I The cause of action for malicious prosecution has not been abrogated by the litigation privilege. 1 EFTA01112583  *** Point II Malicious prosecution and the litigation privilege are mutually exclusive. Even if they are not mutually exclusive, the litigation privilege is not a defense to a claim for malicious prosecution when the claimed wrongdoing goes to the heart and soul of the underlying proceeding. The Rivernider appeal is set for oral argument on April 28, 2015. The Reply Brief in Edwards is being filed contemporaneously with this Motion, and therefore that appeal is now perfected. Paragraph 5 of this Court's Notice to Attorneys ... (revised June 25, 2014) states: All parties shall promptly bring to the court's attention the pendency in this court of any related case, or any case involving related issues. Undersigned learned that the Rivernider appeal involved the same issue only because it was mentioned in Epstein's Answer Brief (although Epstein apparently did not inform this Court that the appeals involve the same issue). Only after obtaining the briefs from the Rivernider appeal has the undersigned learned that the issues are essentially identical. In both appeals, the Appellees are contending that the Third District's decision in Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.3d 67 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2013) requires that the lower court's judgments be affirmed, while in both cases the Appellants contend that Wolfe was wrongly decided, is aberrational, and that the judgments should be 2 EFTA01112584 reversed because the litigation privilege does not bar an action for malicious prosecution. It is appellants' position in both appeals that this Court should follow the Fifth District's decision in Wright v. Yurko, 446 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), that regardless of which way this Court rules, there will necessarily be decisional conflict which should ultimately be resolved by the Florida Supreme Court. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy in this Court, it would be prudent to have the oral arguments in these two cases held on the same day. Edwards is not asking to share the 10 minutes per side allocated to the Rivemider case, but to have a separate oral argument on the same calendar. Having these cases resolved at the same time will not only ensure uniformity of decision, but also ensure that any future proceedings in the Supreme Court can be pursued in a manner which would conserve judicial resources. Undersigned has contacted John Beranek, opposing counsel in this appeal, to determine whether he objects to this motion, but he was unavailable. Counsel for Appellant in Rivemider has been contacted and does not oppose this Motion. Counsel for the Appellees in Rivemider has been contacted but was unable to agree at this time. 3 EFTA01112585  Wherefore, for the reasons stated above, Bradley J. Edwards, Appellant in Edwards v. Epstein, requests this Court to consolidate his appeal with the appeal in Rivemider v. Meyer, for purposes of scheduling oral argument. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished to all counsel on the attached service list, by email, on March 30, 2015. William B. King, Esq. SEARCY DENNY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach. FL 33409 and BURLINGTON & ROCKENBACH, P.A. Courthouse Commons/Suite 350 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Attorneys for A ellant By: /s/ Philip M. Burlington PHILIP M. BURLINGTON Florida Bar No. 285862 kbt 4 EFTA01112586  SERVICE LIST Edwards v. Epstein Case No. 4D14-2282 John Beranek, Esq. Jack Goldberger, Esq. AUSLEY & MCMULLEN ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER P.O. Box 391 & WEISS, P.A. Tallahassee FL 2 02 250 So. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400 West Palm Beach. FL Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Fred Haddad, Esq. Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. FRED HADDAD, P.A. TONJA HADDAD, P.A. 1 Financial Plaza, Ste. 2612 315 SE 7th Street., Ste. 301 Fort Lauderdale FL 33301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Mark Nurik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. NURIK Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. 1 E. Broward Blvd., Ste. 700 FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein Fort Lauderdale FL 01 W. Chester Brewer, Jr., Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Edwards W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A. 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein 5 EFTA01112587