EFTA01196659.pdf

APPENDIX 1. Order Granting Fees and Costs of February 3, 2015 2. Epstein's Motion for Fees and Costs with attached pleadings dated June 2, 2014. EFTA01196659  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO.: 2009CA0408003OOOCMB CIVIL DIVISION "AG" Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, V. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Counter-Defendant's, Jeffrey Epstein's, Motion for Fees and Costs filed on June 2, 2014. A hearing was held on December 8, 2014, at which 't counsel presented argument on the Motion. On December 23, 2014, Jeffrey Epstein filed an additional memorandum of law. This Court has carefillly reviewed the Motion, Response, Reply and all applicable legal authority, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. I. BACKGROUND This case arises from Plainfiffitounter-Defendant Jeffery Epstein's lawsuit against Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Bradley Edwards and Scott Rothstein. Edwards then countersued Epstein for malicious prosecution. Epstein voluntarily dismissed his initial suit On Augustin 2011, Epstein served an Offer of Judgment ("Offer") on Edwards in the amount of $300,0Won the counterclaim. The Offer included a general release, specifically a confidentiality provision. Edwards did npt accept the Offer. On January 27, 2014, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Epstein on both counts and issued an order to this effect on May 19, 2014. A final judgment was entered in favor of Epstein on May 27, 2014. EFTA01196660  Epstein now seeks fees and coats pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 768.79 end Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. Edwards argues that the Offer of Judgment was not valid and therefore Epstein is not entitled to fees and costs. II. ANALYSIS The requirements for a valid proposal for settlement are set forth in section 768.79, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. The offer of judgment statute and rule must be strictly construed, as they are in derogation of the common law rule that each party pay its overt attorney's fees. Alamo Fin., L.P. v. Mazoff, 112 So. 3d 626, 628 (FM. 4th DCA 2013). "The rule does not demand the impossible. It merely requires that the settlement proposal be safficiently clear and definite to allow the offeree to make an informed without needing clarification." Id. "Therefore, parties should not 'nit-pick' the validity of a proposal for settlement based on allegations of ambiguity unless the asserted ambiguity could 'reasonably affect the offeree's decision' on whether to accept the proposal for settlement.'?. at 629. : .:.2 Releases are generally treated as conditions or nonmonetary terms that must be described with particularity. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067, 1078 (Fla, 2006). A proposal for settlement can contain either the proposed release or a summary of the tams of the proposed release, provided that the summary eliminates any reasonable ambiguity abouia4s scope. Mix v, Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 67 So. 3d 289, 292 (Fla. 5th DCA2011), "Without the. attaclunent of the agreements for release, indemnity, and contribution; oz, en inclusion of their terms in the proposals of settlement, the proposals did not satiey 'the particularity requirement of Rule 1.442(cX2), which requires the settlement proposals to !state with particularity any relevant conditions' and 'non-monetary terms." Ziadie v. Feldbfstinti44 So. 3d 435, 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). 2 EFTA01196661  In the present case, Epstein attached he proposed general release in its entirety to the offer of judgment. (See Epstein's Exhibit A). The terms of the release include language that specifically requires Edwards to keep the details of the settlement confidential. Therefore, Wilke Court finds that the non-monetary terms of the offer of judgment were sufficiently described to meet the requirements of section 768.79. Edwards next argues that because it is impossible to determine the value of the confidentiality clause, it is therefore impossible to find that the final judgment in favor of Epstein (which has no confidentiality provision) is "better" than the proposed settlement. In general, releases and confidentiality clauses are typical and valid as part of a proposal for settlement. See Bd of Motets of Florida Ad. Univ. v. Bowman, 853 So. 2d 507, 509 ,(Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ("In the instant case, the language in the General Release, even:though expansive, is typical of other general releases and is clear and unambiguous. The fact „that Plaintiffs are required to release Defendant for all claims which had accrued as of the date of the Proposal for Settlement does not invalidate the Proposal for Settlement. The Florida Supreme Court has held that general releases contained in proposals for settlement are enforceable to further the policy of encouraging settlements.") The standard for determining whether a proposed settlement is eligible imder,spetiosa 768.89 is not, whether the final judgment is "better" than the offered settlement. "Under seam 768.79, a defendant in any civil action for damages is entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys fees if the defendant's offer of judgment is not accepted and If the judgment is for no liabjaty or is at least 25$ less than the offer." Section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2009); Disney v. Yenighen, 804 So. 2d 581, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). 3 1/4, EFTA01196662  In the case at band, the final judgment in fluor of Epstein made a finding of no liability. Therefore it is clear that the value of the confidentiality clause is not necessary in order to determine whether the judgment obtained was better than the judgment offered. Because the final judgment was for no liability, Epstein's offer makes him eligible under this section for fees and costs. At the hearing on this Motion, counsel for Edwards claimed a practical effect of the confidentiality clause in the offer of judgment. Edwards argues that compliance with the confidentiality clause would have been imposing an unethical restriction upon his legal obligations to existing clients. The Court finds that the language of the confidentiality dlauliis clear and allows for disclosure of the details of the settlement pursuant to "valid order of a Court of competent jmisdiction whether directly or indirectly." This allows for any required disclosure of the settlement to Edwards' clients. Moreover, to the extent there is any conflict between.* outcome of this matter and Edwards' obligations to existing clients, Edwards knew or should have know of that conflict when be brought the counterclaim against Epstein while representing clients in other matters that may have involved Epstein. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for Fees and Co,sts is GRANTED. , DONE.and ORDERED in Chambers In West Palm Beach, P ch County. Florida this 3 day of 2015. nit tit.. O. a RAFELE CIRC. is JUDGE Copies flints:led to: 4 EFTA01196663  Jack Scarola, Esq. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldberger, Esq. 250 Australian Ave. South, Ste. 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Broward Blvd., Ste. 700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Fred Haddad, Esq. I Financial Plaza, Ste. 2612 Ft. Lauderdale„FL 33301 Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. 315 SE 7th Si, Ste. 301 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 William B. King, Esq. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Burlington & Rpckenbach, P.A. Courthouse Commons, Ste. 350 444 West Ralroad Ave. West Palm Beach, FL 33401 5 EFTA01196664  Filing N 14304135 Electron ically Filed 06/02/2014 12 :14:26 PM N THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL AND FOR PALM BE CI RCUIT IN ACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO. 502009CA04 08002OOCXME Plaintiff/Counter-Defend ant, Va. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWAR DS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plain tiffs, PLAINTIFF/COUNTE ngs AND COSTS R- DEFENDANT JEFFRE AN;CI INCORPORATED Y EPSTEIN'S MOTI ON FOR MEMORANDUM O F LAW PlaintifECounttr-Defe ndant Jeffrey Epste in ("Epstein"), by an d through his undersigned counsel an d pursuant to §768.79 of the Florida Statutes and Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Ci vil Procedure, hereby files this Motion reques ting that the Court enter an Order of entit lement to costs and att orneys' fees against De fendant/Counter- Plaintiff Bradley Edwa rds rEdwards"). In su pport of thereof, Epstein states as follows: INTRODUCTION On August 25, 2011, Ep stein served an Offer of Judgment on Edward amount of three hundre s in the d thousand dollars ($30 0,000.00) pursuant to Ru ie 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civi l Procedure and §768.79 of the Florida Statutes (the "Offer"). A true and correct copy of same is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." Edwards failed to accept Epstein's Offer. On Ja nuary 27, 2014, this Hono rable Court granted sum mary judgment in favor of Epstein on bo th counts. This Court enter ed an Order reflecting same on May Tonic neelditd, P.A. • 315 38 -16 Str eet, Pon Loudatlalu , P1.33301• - EFTA01196665  19, 2014. A true and correc t copy of the Order is attached hereto as "Exhibit B." A Final Judgment has been entered in favor of Epstein against Ed wards, and is attached hereto as "Exhibit C." Pursuant to §76 8.79 of the Florida Statutes and Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Epste in is entitled to recover his reasonable costs and attorneys' fees against Edwards that we re incurred from the date of the Offer. MEMORANDUM OF LAW A. A Fee and Cost Award is Proper Pursuant to §768.7 Florida Statutes. 9 of the Section 768.79 of the Florid a Statutes governs offers of jud gment, and provides, in relevant part: (1) In any civil action for damages filed in the courts of defendant files an offer of this state, if a judgment which is not accept plaintiff within 30 days, the ed by the defendant shall be entitled reasonable costs and attorney's to =over fees incurred by him... from filing of the offer if the judgm the date of ent is one of no liability... §768.79 FLA. STAT. (2013). In addition to an award of rea sonable costs, "(tjhe statute creates a mandatory right to attorney's fees when the sta tutory 'prerequisites have been fulfilled: i.e., (I) when a party has served ...an offer of judgm ent, and (2) that party has recovered a judgment ...less than the ... offer.'" Levine v. Ha rris, 791 So. 2d 1175, 117 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001Xciting Sch midt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d 1036,1040 (Ha. 4th DCA 1993). Likewise, pursuant to this statute, "once an offer of judgment has been made and rejected and a judgment of no liability has been entered, the defendant has a right to an award of attorney's fees unl ess the offer was found to hav e been made in bad faith." Florida Gas Transmission Co . v. Lauderdale Sand & Fill. Inc., 813 So. 2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Accordin gly, if the moving party satisfi es the above requisites, the court has very limited discretion to deny attorney's fees and costs. 2 Teakia Haddad, PA. • 315 SE 71h Street Fan Lauderdale, FL 33301• EFTA01196666  If the above requisites are satisfied, the court may only deny attorney's fees "'if the court determines the qualifying offer was not made in good faith.' Absent a finding that a party's offer of judgment was not made in good faith, the trial court cannot disallow an entitlement to an award of fees." Downs v. Coastal Sys. Int?, Inc., 972 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Vines v. Mathis, 867 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). See also McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077,1083 (11th Cir. 2002). An offer of judgment is typically deemed to be a "bad faith" offer when it is a nominal amount in light of the valuation of the case, although many nominal offers have been accepted by the courts as made in good faith. See Fox v. McCaw Cellular Communications of Florida, Inc., 745 So. 2d 330 (FM. 4th DCA 1998); Neptune Beach v. Smith, 740 So. 2d 25, 27 (Ha. 1st DCA 1999). In the case at hand, Edwards filed a Counterclaim against Epste in for abuse of process and malicious prosecution; a Counterclaim agains t which Epstein vigorously litigated. Throughout his defense of the Counterclaim, Epstein repeatedly asserted several defenses, including that all allegations contained in Edwa rds's Counterclaim were barred by the litigation privilege. This Court concluded that both of Edwards's causes of action were barred by the litigation privilege, and entered Summ ary Judgment in favor of Epstein. Epstein timely, and in complete accordance with §768.79 of the Florida Statutes, tendered a good faith Offer of Judgment to Edwards in the sum of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00); an offer Edwards rejected. Unden iably, this offer was not for a nominal amount. Additionally, this offer cannot be deeme d as one made in bad faith, especially in light of the fact that throughout his defense of this action, Epstein maintained that he had no liability to Edwards and that Edwa rds's actions were barred by, 3 Ionia Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7' Street, Fort Lauded& e. FL 33301. EFTA01196667  among other things, the litigation privilege. Accordingly, an award of attorney's fees and costs in favor of Epstein is required under Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes. B. A Fees and Costs Award is Proper Pursuant to Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rides of Civil Procedure Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure applies to all proposals for settlement authorized by Florida law, and provides, in pertinent part: (1) A proposal shall be in writing and shall identify the applicable Florida law under which it is being made. (2) A proposal shall: (A) name the party or parties making the proposal and the party or parties to whom the proposal is being made; (B) identify the claim or claims the proposal is attempting to resolve; (C) state with particularity any relevant conditions; (D) state the total amount of the proposal and state with particularity all nonmonetary terms of the proposal; (E) state with particularity the amount proposed to settle a claim for punitive damages, if any; (F) state whether the proposal includes attorneys' fees and whether attorneys' fees arc part of the legal claim; and (G) include a certificate of service in the form required by Rule 1.080(0. (3) A proposal may be made by or to any party or parties and by or to any combination of parties properly identified in the proposal. A joint proposal shall state the amount and terms attributable to each party. (h) Costs and Fees. (I) If a party is entitled to costs and fees pursuant to applicable Florida law, the court may, in its discretion, determine that a proposal was not made in good faith. In such case, the court may disallow an award of costs and attorneys' fees. FIA.R.Civ.P 1.442 (2013). Under this Rule, which is analogous to §768.79 of the Florida Statutes, "[a]bsent a finding that a party's offer of judgment was not made in good faith, the. court cannot disallow an entitlement to an award of fees " Downs v. Coastal Systems International, Inc., 972 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Here, Epstein served his proposal for settlement in good faith and fulfilled the requisites of Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to create valid and enforceable proposal as a matter of law. Consequently, Epstein is entitled to an award of his fees and costs as permitted thereby. 4 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SR 7° Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301 EFTA01196668  CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, and in reliance upon the law cited herein, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order entitling him to an award of costs and fees, retain jurisdiction to determine the amount of costs and fees to which Epstein is entitled pursuant to the above-referenced authorities, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 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 June 2, 2014. /s/ Ionia I laddad Coleman Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 176737 Tonja Haddad, PA 5315 SE 7th Street Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 MI Attorneys for Epstein Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE Street. Fort lAuderdalt, ft. 33301. EFTA01196669  SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Jack Scarola, Es . re enney taro a a a . 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldber er E . rge , z eiss, 250 Australian Ave. South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradle J. Edwards Es . a e eissing wa s istos rman 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Fred Haddad, Es . tnancta aza Suite 2612 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tortja Haddad Coleman EsEsquire o ono da , . . 315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 W. Chester B wer . es cr rewet, r., P. . 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 3340I 6 Torii* Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7* Street, Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301• EFTA01196670  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800)OOOCMB-AO Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. pLAINTIEF/COUNTER-DErENDANT iggritny EPSTEIN'S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. INDIVIDUALLY Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby serves this Proposal for Settlement upon Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, pursuant to §768.79, Fla. Suit. and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442: 1. This Proposal is being made pursuant to §768.79, Fla. Stat. and Fla R. Civ. P. 1.442. 2. •Phis Proposal is being made on behalf of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN. 3. This Proposal is being made to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. 4. This Proposal is directed to, and is intended to resolve, all claims pled or which could have been pled in the instant action (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB-AG) by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, against Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and all claims pled or which could have been pled by Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, against Plaintiff/Counter- FOwLes Mute Butlierr P.A. • &mum &QM roan, 1395 IIROSI. AVD/U2, Mri /UM MIAMI, PIAMMA 33131 • EXHIVUT "A" EFTA01196671  CASE NO. 50 2009 CA 040800 )OOOCMB AG Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, in this action, including any and all claims for compensatory damages, interest, attorney's fees. and costs. 5. Plaintiff/Countor-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN has not pled a claim for punitive damages against Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, nor has Defendant/Countcr-Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, pled a claim for punitive damages against Plaintifl7Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, although this Proposal is intended to resolve all such claims if available. 6. Attorney's foes are not part of the legal claims brought by Plaintiff/Counter- Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, against Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, and are not part of the legal claims brought by Defendant/Counte•-Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN. However, this Proposal is intended to resolve all such claims if available. 7. The total amount of this Proposal is Three Hundred Thousand Dollars and 00/100 (S300,000.00) to be paid on behalf of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually. 8. The conditions of this Proposal are: (1) that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, shall execute and deliver to undersigned counsel the General Release attached hereto as Exhibit "A;" and (2) that Defondant/Counter-Plaintiff BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, shall, by and through his attorney, execute and deliver to undersigned counsel the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice attached hereto as Exhibit "B" 9. This Proposal shall expire in thirty (30) days from its service unless withdrawn in writing prior to that date. Any acceptance of this Proposal must be in writing and must be an acceptance of the entire Proposal as outlined above. -2 - FOWLet WHITE SI/WM PS • SSFULIIOSANTO PLAZA, 1395 Barka- AVD1132, 14IA FLOOR. MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131 • EFTA01196672  CASE NO. 50 2009 CA 040800 XXXXMB AO I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and cornett copy of the foregoing was faxed and mailed this ZS day of August, 2011 to Jack Scarola, Esq., Searcy, Denney, Searola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409. Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Fla. Bar No. 235954 FOWLER. WHITE BURNETT, P.A. Espirito Santo Plaza, Fourteenth Floor 1395 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: Facsimile: WASOROWROSRT0t-Afl chOna-LCSalvoc -3- FOWLS WRITE BURNET,* P.A • ESPIRITO SANIO PLAZA, 1395 EVLICKML AMUR, II" FLOOR. ?AIWA. FLORIDA 33131 EFTA01196673  GENERAL RELEASE TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME OR MAY CONCERN: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, for and in consideration of the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars and 00/100 (3300,000.00) lawful money of the United States of America, paid to him on behalf of JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released, and forever discharged, and by these presents does for himself, as well as his heirs, survivors, executors, administrators, agents, and assigns, remise, release, acquit and forever discharge JEFFREY EPSTEIN, as well as his heirs, stuvivors, executors, administrators, agents, assigns, attorneys, insurers, and reinsurers (hereinafter referred to as "Releasers"), of and from all manner of action and actions, cause end causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims and demands whatsoever, in law or in equity, which BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, ever had, now has, or may have against Releasees or which his heirs, survivors, executors, administrators, agents, and assigns hereafter can, shall or may have against Releasees, including but not limited to all claims for compensatory damages, punitive damages, penalties, interest, costs or attorney's fees, past, present and future, and all other damages, without limitation, specifically arising out of that certain incident described more particularly in Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs Counterclaim filed in the Action entitled JEFFREY EPSTEIN v. SCOTT R0THSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Case No. 502009CA040800)OOaM13-AO, pending in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida ("the Action"). As further consideration, I agree not to disclose the details of this release in settlement of all claims, including the nature or the amount paid and the reasons for the payment, to any person other than my lawyer, accountant, income tax preparer, or by valid order of a Court of competent EXHIBIT I K. EFTA01196674  jurisdiction whether directly or indirectly. To the extent that I must disclose any of the above information to any of the above named persons, I shall instruct that person or persons to keep the information confidential. I understand and agree that this settlement is the compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim, and that the payment made is not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the party or parties hereby released, and that Releasees deny liability therefor and intend merely to avoid litigation and buy peace. I understand and agree that this General Release shall be construed, enforced and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida and venue for any action to enforce or construe the General Release shall be Paim Beach County, Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1, have hereunto set hand and seal on this day of 201 Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: WITNESS BRADLEY J. EDWARDS STATE OF FLORIDA } COUNTY OF BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared BRADLEY I EDWARDS, who, upon being first duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he executed the foregoing General Release and that the representations therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this day of 20 2 EFTA01196675 Individual Personally Known OR Produced Identification Type And Number of Identification Produced: My Commission Expires: (seal) NOTARY PUBLIC State of Florida at Large EFTA01196676  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800X.3OO1.MB-AG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH P_,REJUDICE COME NOW the parties herein, by and through the undersigned attorneys, and show unto the Court that the parties hereto, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, have agreed to amicably settle all claims brought in the above-styled cause. WHEREFORE, the parties petition this Court for an Order dismissing the claims brought by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, against Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, and the claims brought by Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The parties further request that the Court retain jurisdiction over this case for a period of sixty (60) days to enforce the terms of the settlement. SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A. BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P,A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, Espirito Santo Plaza FOWLER WIUTR DORM- 7T PA. • EMINTO SAND) PLAZA, 1395 9RICKELL. AVIN4I/E, tilisaocm.MIA.mi, FLORIDA 33131 ••• EFTA01196677  CASE NO. 50 2009 CA 040800 XXXXMB AG West Palm Beach, FL 33409 1395 Brickell Ave, 14th Floor Miami, FL 33131 ~fax Sfax JACK SCAROLA, ESQ. JOSEPH L. ACKERMAN, JR, ESQ. Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Counsel for Plaintltf/Cotmter-Defendant Bradley J. Edwards Jeffrey Epstein Fla. Bar No. 169440 Fla. Bar No. 235954 -2- FLOOR, Matadi, FLORIDA 33131 • FOLYLat ViFfittlBUIURECTT P A • ESMR/TO SANTO PLAM, 1395 BMOC/14 AMUR, EFTA01196678  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION: "AG" CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXX.MB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Countcr-Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING COUNTER-DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE having came before the Court upon Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment. Having reviewed the law and case file, having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court hereby determines as follows: Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"). Edwards then filed a counter-claim against Epstein. Epstein subsequently dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. The counter- claim proceeded, undergoing several amendments. As it now stands, the Fourth Amended Counterclaim has two causes of action: abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Epstein moved for summary judgment arguing that the litigation privilege applies to both the abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims. This Court agrees and grants summary judgment in favor of Epstein. EXHIAIT "B" EFTA01196679  The Court thoroughly reviewed Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. US. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). These cases provide the binding precedent in this area of law. All actions occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, so long as the actions have some relation to the underlying proceeding. Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 SO. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). This position was reaffirmed in Echevarria. In Wolfe, the Third District Court of Appeal, quoting in large part from Echevarria, found specifically that the litigation privilege applies to malicious prosecution claims and acts occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, if those acts bear some relation to the proceeding. Edwards urged the Court to fmd that Olson v. Johnson, 96] So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), is in conflict with Wolfe, thereby allowing the Court to fmd that the privilege does not apply. However, Olson is inapplicable, because that case involved false statements made to a police officer prior to the judicial proceeding. The court found that the privilege did not apply, and that the malicious prosecution claim was not barred. At the hearing on the motion, Edwards conceded that all of the allegations made in both the abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims are of acts occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding and bear some relation to the proceeding. Therefore, the Court funds that the absolute litigation privilege applies to both the abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims made herein. The Court also notes that the cases cited by Edwards involved malicious prosecution claims stemming from actions filed by the party themselves, not counsel. In the instant case, it was conceded that all filings were done by an attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar, rather than by the individual party. Accordingly, it is 2 EFTA01196680  ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this /l day of May 2014. Copies furnished to attached service list 3 EFTA01196681  SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800)OOO(MB-AG ~W. Chester Br we illiS re W. Chester Brewer, Jr., P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jack Scarol Es uir ~. Searcy Denney Scarola et al 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik, Esquire 1 East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 ~F le eFL if 301 Edwards Es Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 1 Financial Plaza Suite 2612 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Toni Haddad Coleman Es .uire Law Offices of Tonja Haddad, P.A. 315 SE 761 Strect, Suite 301 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA01196682  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION -AG CASE NO. 502009CA0408003CCOIMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaindff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. FINAL JUDGMENT Pursuant to the Summary Judgment rendered in this action: IT IS ADJUDGED that Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (SS unknown) take nothing by this action and that Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 6100 Red Hook Boulevard, Virgin Islands, shall go hence without day. The court reserves jurisdiction for the taxation of costs and if appropriate, the award of attorney's fees. • DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm, Beach County, Florida, this SIGNED & DATED day of , 2014. MAY 2 7 2014 JUDGE DONALD W. HAFELE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE Copies famished to those on the attached service list. EXHIBIT "C" EFTA01196683  SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800X>OOCMB-AO . Chester Brewer Jr., Esquire . ester rewer, r., . . 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Scar a Es uire Searcy enney car