EFTA00613846.pdf

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 1-1.1-thENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO IMPROPER FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against Epstein; abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Both causes of action were premised upon Epstein's initial filing of his lawsuit against Edwards. Epstein filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting therein that both the abuse of process claim and the malicious prosecution claim filed by Edwards against Epstein were barred by the litigation privilege. Epstein's Motion was argued before this Court on January 27, 2014, at which time this Court, after extensive argument and review of all written submissions and case law, granted Epstein's Motion. Days later, Edwards filed a Motion for Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. EFTA00613846 Reconsideration. Three months later, Edwards has filed this purported "supplemental authority" in support of his initial Motion for Reconsideration. However, this supplemental authority" does nothing more than establish the fact that another trial court, just as this Court did in the case at hand, properly applied and followed the decision in Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Ha. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). Accordingly, with no change in the law or facts since the Court's original ruling, and with Edwards simply restating his disagreement with this Court's findings, this filing of "supplemental authority" is wholly inappropriate. In fact, this "supplemental authority" contains no new or additional authority at all. Rather, it is a mere recitation of the contentions submitted by Edwards in his original Motion being argued by another attorney, which is in no way binding upon this Court. Accordingly, the Court should not entertain this "supplemental authority" submitted by Edwards. ARGUMENT Edwards, despite his interminable filings, has not identified one Florida case decided either after the Wolfe decision or the above-referenced Florida Supreme Court cases upon which the Wolfe court relied in rendering its ruling that establishes that this Court erred. Nor does his "supplemental authority." Instead of accepting the Court's ruling, Edwards invites this Court to hold that the Third District Court of Appeal committed error in Wolfe. The Florida Supreme Court, however, stated unequivocally that a "trial court may not overrule or recede from the controlling decision of" an appellate court. See System Components v. FDOT, 14 So. 3d 967, 973 n.I (Fla. 2009); see also State ex rel. Reynolds v. White, 24 So. 160, 315 (1898) ("There is and can be no authority in an inferior court to correct mistakes made by this court in its conclusions of fact or its 2 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00613847 interpretation of the law . . . If so, litigation would be interminable, the superior would be subordinated to the inferior, and the judgments of the superior could only be enforced when they coincided with the judgments of the inferior."). In Systems Components, the Florida Supreme Court found that it was "improper" for a party to do what Edwards seeks to do in the case at hand; argue that the Court ignore appellate court precedent. Id. at 973 n.1, 985. This Court correctly recognized that at the Summary Judgment hearing. See Transcript of Motion for Summary Judgment hearing p. 56; lines 1-4. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that this Court disregard the "supplemental authority" submitted by Edwards. 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 May 12, 2014. /s/ Tonja Haddad Coleman Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 176737 Tonja Haddad, PA 5315 SE 71° Street Suite 301 e, Florida 33301 (facsimile) Attorneys for Epstein 3 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00613848  SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800300CXMBAG 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 W. Chester Brewer, Jr. W. Chester Brewer, Jr., P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 4 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. EFTA00613849