📄 Extracted Text (983 words)
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
Plaintiff, AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
VS.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XVOCMBAG
and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS,
individually. JUDGE: CROW
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S
MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his
undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.270(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure, hereby files this Motion to Bifurcate the Trial in this matter. In support
thereof, Epstein states:
INTRODUCTION
On December 19, 2012, this Honorable Court granted Defendant/Counter-
Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards's (hereinafter "Edwards") Motion for Leave to Assert Claim
for Punitive Damages against Epstein. This case is currently scheduled on this Court's
October 2013 Trial Calendar. Edwards has alleged two causes of action in this matter
against Epstein; one for malicious prosecution and one for abuse of process. Damages are
a requisite for each cause of action.
Before Edwards is permitted to present a case for punitive damages, he must first
prove these claims against Epstein. Epstein has denied liability as to these claims and has
asserted various affirmative defenses, which include Edwards's failure to state a cause of
action in both abuse of process and malicious prosecution; Edwards's failure to properly
plead damages; Edwards's inability to overcome the absolute immunity afforded to
1
EFTA01102332
Epstein under the litigation privilege; and Edwards's failure to suffer any damages.
Unless Edwards is able to overcome these affirmative defenses and prove actual
damages, he will not be entitled to an award in punitive damages. Accordingly, and as
explained more fully below, the punitive damages phase of trial should be bifurcated
from the liability phase of trial.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Rule 1.270(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure grants courts the authority
to bifurcate a case between the liability and the damages issues. FLA. R.Civ. P. 1.270
(2013).Rule 1.270 states, in relevant part that "[t]he court in furtherance of convenience
or to avoid prejudice may order a separate trial of any claim, crossclaim, counterclaim, or
third-party claim or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, crossclaims,
counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues." FLA. R.Civ. P. 1.270 (2013). This Rule
states a liberal standard, allowing the court to use discretion. Microclimate Sales Co., Inc.
v. Doherty, 731 So. 2d 856, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Fla. R.Civ. P. 1.270 (2013).
Bifurcation is proper "absent a specific threat of inconsistent verdicts or prejudice to a
party." Roseman v. Town Square Ass'n, Inc., 810 So. 2d d516, 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
Thus, the effect of bifurcating the case is to promote judicial economy; if the Plaintiff
fails to prevail at trial on the issue of liability, there is no trial on the issue of damages.
As such, Judicial resources are thereby conserved.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed the special issue of bifurcating a case in
which the plaintiff seeks punitive damages in W. R. Grace & Co. v. Waters, 638 So. 2d
502 (Fla. 1994),In Waters, the Court established the following procedure for bifurcating
the punitive damages phase of trial from the liability phase of trial:
2
EFTA01102333
We hold that henceforth trial courts, when presented with a timely motion,
should bifurcate the determination of the amount of punitive damages
from the remaining issues at trial. At the first stage of a trial in which
punitive damages are an issue, the jury should hear evidence regarding
liability for actual damages, the amount of actual damages, and liability
for punitive damages, and should make determinations on those issues. If,
at the first stage, the jury determines that punitive damages are warranted,
the same jury should then hear evidence relevant to the amount of punitive
damages and should determine the amount for which the defendant is
liable.
Id. at 506. Therefore, based upon the holding in this case, it is proper for this court to
bifurcate the punitive damages phase from the liability phase of trial.
Here, Edwards asserts Epstein is liable in abuse of process and malicious
prosecution and seeks punitive damages for both claims. Under the holding in Waters,
this Court should bifurcate this trial into two separate stages. In the first stage, the jury
should hear evidence regarding liability for the damages stemming from the claims in
abuse of process and malicious prosecution, the amount of actual damages claimed by
Edwards, if any, and liability for punitive damages. After hearing these claims, the jury
should make a determination on these issues. Then, if at the first stage, the jury
determines that punitive damages are warranted, the same jury should proceed to the
second stage. Therefore, the second stage of trial is only reached if Edwards proves his
claims and the jury determines that punitive damages are warranted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the argument presented above and the authorities cited in support
thereof, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that this Court
enter an Order bifurcating the punitive damages phase of trial from the liability phase of
trial, and grant such other and further relief as deemed necessary and proper.
3
EFTA01102334
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served
upon all parties listed below, via Electronic Service, this August 7, 2013.
s/s Tonja Haddad Coleman
Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq.
Fla. Bar No.: 0176737
LAW OFFICES OF TONJA HADDAD, PA
315 SE 71h Street
Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(facsimile)
4
EFTA01102335
Electronic Service List
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.
Fanner Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman
425 N Andrews Avenue
Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Fred Haddad, Esq.
I Financial Plaza
Suite 2612
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
5
EFTA01102336
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
eaecffebf6773ecf3a85c7dc1b8bbb77f80fc6243e8216e74d64f611197cd5be
Bates Number
EFTA01102332
Dataset
DataSet-9
Document Type
document
Pages
5
Comments 0