EFTA01108182.pdf

3 IX THE CIRCUIT COURT OF IRE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 - - - CASE NO. 502005CAO4O8OOXXXXXBAO 3 THE COURT: Epstein versus Rothstein. It's the JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, 4 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's motion to dismiss. I V,- 5 have reviewed the motion and also the counterclaim. :OTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, ,nd BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, 6 I've read some of the citations you've given me. I individually. 7 did not receive a written response from the Defendants. i 8 defendant _ _ 9 MR. SCAROLA: The response that we provided. 10 Your Honor, was a highlighted copy of the complaint. HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE DAVID CROW Pages I through 22 11 THE COURT: Then I got it. Okay. Yes. ma'am. 12 MS. COLEMAN: Judge. may I come up to the Monday, February II, 2013 8:16 a.m. - 8:40 a.n. 13 podium? PALM BEACH COUXTY COURTHOUSE, COURTROOM 9C 14 THE COURT: Sure, whatever is comfortable. 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 15 MS. COLEMAN: I'm more comfortable standing. 16 Thank you. As you said. Judge -- Tonja Coleman on Stenographically Reported By: 17 behalf of Mr. Epstein. SUSAN PETTY, FPR Florida Professional Reporter 18 We have filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Edwards' 19 fourth amended counterclaim in which he was permitted 20 by this court to add a claim for punitive damages. 21 We have four basic arguments. and the first of 22 which is basically the issue of proceeding with the 23 punitive damages. 24 Now, this Court did grant Mr. Edwards leave to 25 assert a claim in punitive damages. The law is clear 2 4 1 APPEARANCES: 1 that that ruling in no way circumvented or obviated 2 2 Mr. Edwards' obligation to properly plead punitive On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 3 LAW OFFICES OF TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN. P.A. 3 damages. 315 Southeast Seventh Street 4 Rule 1.120 of the Florida Rules of Civil 4 Suite 301 5 Procedure governs pleading special damages. and it 301 5 6 requires a heightened standard of requirement when 7 pleading such. 6 BY: TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN. ESQUIRE 8 You must plead ultimate facts demonstrating 7 On behalf of Bradley J. Edwards: 9 wantonness, oppression. or outrage. And the law is a SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA. ET AL 10 very clear: that the mere use of adjectives is and of 2139 Palm Beach Likes Boulevard 9 11 themselves insufficient to support a claim of West Palm Beach. Florida 33409 12 wantonness, recklessness, or maliciousness. And the L0 13 case for which that proposition stands is Leuare BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE 11 14 versus Music & Worth Construction Incorporated. 486 12 15 So. 2d. 1359 Florida First DCA. 1986. 13 16 Allegations that are in an amended complaint 14 -- _ 17 without supporting ultimate facts are insufficient as 15 18 a matter of law to stay a cause of action for 16 19 punitive damages. 17 18 20 Here. all Mr. Edwards has done, by his own 19 21 admission last week. is change his wherefore clause 20 22 to state that he is seeking punitive damages. 21 2E 23 Changing the wherefore clause in the complaint 23 24 does not mean there is a heightened standard. Judge. 24 25 It does not provide one fact upon which we can rely 25 1 (Pages 1 to 4) WWW.USLEGALSUPPORT.COM 561-835-0220 EFTA01108182  5 7 1 and respond or which this court can rely on in 1 every pleading motion on the docket sheet in support 2 assessing whether or not it's a proper claim for 2 of his claim of abuse of process. 3 punitive damages. 3 On the face of this complaint. Judge, is the 4 The standard for punitive damages. as this 4 affirmative defense of litigation privilege and 5 Court is aware, is that of a manslaughter standard. 5 irrefutably the fact that not one action was pointed 6 It must show a gross and flagrant character 6 to by Mr. Edwards in his complaint or any action that 7 evidencing recklessness, indifference to the rights 7 occurred outside the process. 8 or others. which is equivalent to intentional 8 The case law is very, very clear, and I'm going 9 violation of those rights. And that's the 9 to cite two cases for the Court: S&1 Investments 10 Della-Donna case: 512 So. 2d 1051. Fourth DCA. 1987. 10 versus Payless, 315 -- I'm sorry. 36 So. 3d 909 11 Edwards fails to allege any additional facts 11 Fourth DCA case from 2010. and Marty versus Gresh. 12 that support willful and wanton misconduct or gross 12 501 So. 2d 87 Florida First DCA, 1987. which states: 13 and flagrant reckless indifference for acts committed 13 The dismissal of an abuse of process claim is proper 14 by Mr. Epstein. 14 if the plaintiff fails to allege any act that 15 In addition. Judge. its very important to note 15 constitutes misuse of process after it was issued. 16 that the plaintiff must prove the underlying tort and 16 Judge. because the wherefore clause now asks 17 properly plead the underlying tort before even 17 for damages as well as punitive damages. dismissal of 18 setting forth a heightened factual basis for punitive 18 this abuse of process claim is proper because it 19 damages. 19 doesn't point to any facts that are outside the 20 The first cause of action as asserted by 20 process. 21 Mr. Edwards is abuse of process. Malice is one of 21 The same would hold true for punitive damages. 22 the underlying elements in that cause of action. 22 The mere recitation of the word "malice" absent 23 As such, the law is clear that because 23 probable cause is not enough. 24 Mr. Edwards must properly plead malice for his 24 The case law is clear that a wanton probable 25 underlying cause of action, he must plead a 25 cause isn't even enough heightened -- the standard 6 8 1 heightened requirement other than reusing the word 1 pleading for malice for an abuse of process claim, 2 malice to support a claim in punitive damages. 2 much less for punitive damages. 3 This complaint fails to do so. and because of 3 Finally, with respect to that abuse of process 4 that, the punitive damages allegations should be 4 claim. Judge. is the issue of litigation privilege. 5 dismissed as to both counts. 5 In Jackson versus Bellsouth Communications. 372 6 Our second argument with respect to dismissal 6 F 3rd 1250. the 11th circuit in applying the Florida 7 turns us to the changes to the cause of action and 7 state law stated that the litigation privilege should 8 abuse of process. 8 be considered regarding a motion to dismiss when the 9 With respect to the cause of action and abuse 9 complaint affirmatively and clearly shows the 10 of process, Mr. Epstein -- Mr. Edwards — excuse me. 10 conclusive applicability of the defense to bar the 11 Mr. Edwards' actions -- by his own admission, on the 11 action. 12 four corners of his complaint -- occurred in the 12 Every fact alleged by Mr. Edwards in his 13 course of the litigation. 13 complaint is afforded immunity pursuant to the 14 This Court has previously ruled on motions to 14 litigation privilege. It protects all acts taken 15 dismiss in this case, and I brought the order to show 15 that are functionally tied to the judicial 16 you that, number one, this argument has not been 16 proceeding. and there arises immediately upon doing 17 raised before, and, number two, the proper standard 17 of any act required or permitted by law in the due 18 is delineated in this Court's own order. 18 course of the judicial proceeding or is necessarily 19 While the Court is confined to a limited review 19 preliminarily thereto. 20 of the four corners of the complaint in ruling in a 20 For that proposition. Fridovich versus 21 motion to dismiss, the law is very, very clear that 21 Fridovich 598 So. 2d 65 Florida Supreme Court. 1992. 22 an abuse of process requires misuse of process after 22 In addition. Judge. the Florida Supreme Court 23 issue. 23 in 2007 in Echevarria versus Cole. 950 So. 2d 380, 24 The plain face in the four corners of Edwards 24 stated: Absolute immunity must be afforded to any 25 own complaint show that he's relying on each and 25 act occurring during the course of a judicial 2 (Pages 5 to 8) WWW.USLEGALSUPPORT.COM 561-835-0220 EFTA01108183  9 11 1 proceeding regardless of whether the act involves a 1 on a reason inconsistent with the guilt of the 2 defamatory statement or other tortious behavior so 2 accused. 3 long as it bears some relation to the proceeding. 3 In addition. Judge, it's very obvious that with 4 Here, not only does Edwards' own facts fail to 4 respect to a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. 5 show any action taken outside the litigation, S Mr. Epstein. would refile his case right now if it 6 Edwards' main complaint actually asserts litigation 6 were a bona fide termination of the cause of action. 7 privilege for the proposition that he was properly 7 We would not be permitted to refile the case. It 8 permitted to file this lawsuit against Mr. Epstein. 8 would be. in fact, a termination as defined by the 9 In addition, Judge, Logan versus Middleburke 9 law and is provided for by the case law interpreting 10 wherefore the Supreme Court in 1994 states that the 10 what a bona fide termination means. 11 litigation privilege affords a defendant immunity 11 In sum. Judge. because we could refile the 12 from suit. It's more than a mere defense to a 12 case, there is no bona fide termination, and the 13 liability. 13 cause of action for malicious prosecution should also 14 As such. Judge. because the dismissal is 14 be dismissed. 15 appropriate when the complaint affirmatively and 15 In summation. Judge. we would point that while 16 clearly shows the defense on the face of the 16 Mr. Edwards did file a fourth amended counterclaim 17 pleading. and this Court is now being asked to look 17 for punitive damages, the response to our motion to 18 outside the four corners of the complaint. Because 18 dismiss as provided by Mr. Scarola shows little more 19 the applicability of the litigation privilege 19 than he is relying upon the underlying facts which 20 completely bars this action and bars any claim for 20 this Court agreed showed a short and plain statement 21 punitive damages and mandates dismissal. 21 of the facts to survive a motion to dismiss under an 22 Finally, Judge, with respect to the last cause 22 initial cause of action. 23 of action. which is malicious prosecution. we would 23 It did not, however, rise to the heightened 24 point out to the Court that the change that has 24 pleading requirements that would be required to plead 25 occurred since we were last here is that Mr. Epstein 25 a claim in punitive damages. and for that reason, 10 12 1. has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without 1 Judge. we respectfully request that the fourth 2 prejudice in his case-in-chief against Mr. Epstein -- 2 amended counterclaim be dismissed. 3 Edwards. Excuse me. 3 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Scarola. 4 However, he cannot state a cause of action for 4 MR. SCAROLA: Good morning. Your Honor. may it 5 malicious prosecution because this is not a bona fide 5 please the Court. 6 termination in Edwards' favor. 6 Let me begin, if I could, by addressing the 7 The elements or requirement for a malicious 7 arguments that were made in support of this motion in 8 prosecution claim require the commencement of a a reverse order. 9 judicial proceeding. its legal causation where the 9 The last of the arguments were an attack on the 10 present defendant against the plaintiff, its bona 10 adequacy of this pleading to state claims for abuse 11 fide termination in favor of the plaintiff, the 11 of process and malicious prosecution. 12 absence of probable for prosecution, malice and 12 Your Honor has heard those arguments repeatedly 13 damages. 13 in the past. and Your Honor has rejected those 14 The failure to provide one of these elements in 14 arguments repeatedly in the past. 15 a complaint is fatal to the entire claim. For that 15 Your Honor has found that the allegations 16 proposition we would point the Court to Alamo 16 stated in this complaint are sufficient to withstand 17 Rent-a-Car versus Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352, again, a 17 a motion to dismiss. 18 Florida Supreme Court case from 1994. 18 So the only real issue before this court at 19 Edwards pled that Epstein abandoned his claim 19 this time - 20 and that this count of being -- the complaint being 20 THE COURT: Well. I could have been wrong. 21 dismissed without prejudice is a bona fide 21 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Your Honor, you could have 22 termination. 22 been wrong. but you weren't. You were absolutely 23 However, the law is very, very clear that this 23 right, and this isn't a motion for rehearing. 24 dismissal without prejudice is not a bona fide 24 THE COURT: I understand. 25 termination, because it was voluntary and not based 25 MR. SCAROLA: If it were a motion for 3 (Pages 9 to 12) WWW.USLEGALSUPPORT.COM 561-835-0220 EFTA01108184  13 15 1 rehearing, it would be necessary to file that motion 1 substantiated in a proffer. And, in fact. 2 to support it with something other than what has been 2 substantially more than just a proffer of evidence. 3 argued before, which hasn't been done. And Your 3 an indication of clear record evidence to support the 4 Honor would then need to make a determination as to 4 recovery of punitive damages. 5 whether you want to grant the rehearing. None of 5 I provided Your Honor with a highlighted copy 6 that has been done. 6 of the complaint and the specific factual 7 In the guise of attacking the adequacy of these 7 allegations. not merely adjectives or unsupported 8 pleadings to state a claim for punitive damages. they 8 conclusions, but factual allegations to support the 9 have attempted to reargue everything that we have 9 claim for punitive damages. 10 argued. I suggest to Your Honor on many ortgsions, 10 In Paragraph 5 we allege in substance that 11 not just one, but many occasions in the context of 11 Mr. Epstein faced and faces criminal prosecution in 12 both the claims that were brought against Mr. Edwards 12 civil liability. 13 and in the context of the claims that we have brought 13 In Paragraph 6 we allege that Mr. Epstein 14 against Mr. Epstein. all of those legal issues have 14 asserted his fifth amendment privilege, had no 15 been repeatedly examined by Your Honor and they have 15 intention of waiving that privilege and had no 16 been rejected with regard to their application to 16 defense to the criminal claims against him or the 17 this complaint. 17 civil claims that were being brought against him. 18 So if it is Your Honor's intention to reexamine 18 And so he decided to resort to extortion since he 19 those again. I would like notice of the fact that 19 didn't have any legal defense. 20 Your Honor is granting a motion for rehearing with 20 In Paragraph 8 we allege that Mr. Edwards did 21 regard to issues that you have already ruled upon. 21 nothing wrong in the prosecution of his cases against 22 I think that that's entirely unnecessary. You 22 Mr. Epstein. and Mr. Epstein had no reason to believe 23 were right before. You were right repeatedly before. 23 otherwise. 24 and there is no basis, because there is no new 24 In Paragraph 9 we allege that Mr. Epstein sued 25 argument to support the contention now that those 25 for monetary damages when he had suffered none, and 14 16 1 underlying allegations somehow failed to state a 1 that the damage claim was solely part of an 2 claim for relief with regard to both abuse of process 2 extortionate effort on Mr. Epstein's part. 3 and malicious prosecution. 3 In Paragraph 10 we allege that Mr. Epstein 4 So let me address the adequacy of the 4 acted solely out of malice, and in Paragraph 13 we 5 allegations as they relate to punitive damages. 5 allege that Mr. Epstein knew not only that the claims 6 because that is a matter that is being raised before 6 were factually unsupported and unsupportable. but 7 Your Honor, not really for the first time, but it is 7 that he also knew that the charges against 8 being raised in the context of this notion to dismiss 8 Mr. Edwards could not be prosecuted as a matter of 9 for the first time. 9 law. 10 The adequacy of the allegations was really 10 I don't know how you can more clearly set forth 11 addressed when Your Honor granted the motion for 11 a plain and concise statement of the facts supporting 12 leave to amend to assert a claim for punitive 12 an entitlement to punitive damages as has been 13 damages. because the only thing that the motion to 13 supported by the proffer than as exists in this 14 assert a claim for punitive damages did was to 14 complaint. 15 provide record evidence to support the factual 15 The fact that the allegations were not changed 16 allegations included in the complaint. 16 between the time that we asserted our claim for abuse 17 As I have informed Your Honor previously, there 17 of process and malicious prosecution without a claim 18 is only one change to each of the two claims stated 18 for punitive damages and when we added the claim for 19 previously, and that one change is a change to the 19 punitive damages says nothing about the adequacy of 20 wherefore clause. And it simply asserts that having 20 those allegations. They were adequate from the 21 satisfied the statutory prerequisite for the 21 beginning. They are adequate now, and this is a 22 assertion of a claim for punitive damages. having 22 motion that should be denied, so that this matter can 23 been granted leave to amend, we are amending to 23 be placed at issue. And we can finally get a trial 24 assert a claim for punitive damages on the basis of 24 date in this now four-year-old case. Thank you. Your 25 the allegations that were already made and already 25 Honor. 4 (Pages 13 to 16) WWW.USLEGALSUPPORT.COM 561-835-0220 EFTA01108185  17 19 1 THE COURT: Okay. Brief rebuttal. 1 ton elements to get to punitive damages. This 2 MS. COLEMAN: Yes, sir. First. Judge I would 2 complaint fails to do that, number one. 3 point out to the court that while Mr. Sc-anala's 3 Number two. if this proffer had all this 4 suggestions and assertions are just that, suggestions 4 additional proof, it should have been pled in the 5 and assertions, he has provided not one role of law 5 complaint. That's the whole purpose of going through 6 or one case to support any of his position. 6 the discovery process and finding out that '7 Secondly. while -- 7 information before you're permitted to plead punitive 8 THE COURT: I think his position would be all 8 damages, Judge. is to make an evidentiary proffer to 9 the things you've cited. 9 support the claim. 10 MS. COLEMAN: Maybe that is his position. 10 Why, in common sense, would we go through all 11 Judge. but he didn't argue it. Judge. I'm sorry. 11 of that work if it wasn't necessary to add those 12 THE COURT: Yes. And then the question is. as 12 elements to the complaint as punitive damages. 13 I understand it. is whether or not the facts -- 13 This is not an attorney's fees complaint. If 14 whether they were at issue as alleged or it's been 14 someone is permitted legally to plead attorney's 15 rehashed into something else — in and of themselves 15 fees -- 16 are sufficient for punitive damages. And secondly. 16 THE COURT: I can tell you why. because of the 17 whether or not the underlying cause of action of 17 statute, because everybody's pulling punitive damages 18 that — 18 without - 19 MS. COLEMAN: And we present. based upon the 19 MS. COLEMAN: Right. 20 voluminous amount of case law which we have provided. 20 THE COURT: -- any gatekeeper. In tort cases 21 that they do not 21 now, they make all kinds of horrible allegations, no 22 Mr. Scarola came up here and argued with 22 matter whether or not that's sufficient for punitive 23 respect to his proffer regarding the punitive 23 damages. the judge says you supported those 24 damages. Not one fact was — 24 allegations with some type of facts. 25 THE COURT: What he said was malicious 25 MS. COLEMAN: So those facts should be pled. 18 20 1 prosecution does not include the allegations that you 1 That's exactly my point. You're making my point. 2 made against him and his client were false. Two. 2 You have to plead the facts that support punitive 3 that you knew you couldn't support that, and. I mean. 3 damages. 4 he says a whole bunch of stuff he says in hem. 4 THE COURT: You're supposed to plead ultimate 5 MS. COLEMAN: If I may. Judge. all of those 5 facts. 6 issues: the extortion, the malice. the lack of 6 MS. COLEMAN: If I had -- -/ probable cause are elements of the underlying cause 7 THE COURT: I understand that. ma'am. Are you 8 of action of abuse of process. 8 understanding me? I'm sorry. I apologize. 9 If trying to plead and prove those underlying 9 I'm saying that you can plead ultimate facts 10 causes of action elements were enough. everyone would 10 which support a punitive claim without the necessity 11 be in it for punitive damages. There would be no 11 of actually having that punitive claim. 12 reason for a proffer. 12 And the fact that all the facts alleged in the 13 Those pleadings do not rise to the level of the 13 complaint may be sufficient to support a claim for 14 magic language. The wantonness. the recklessness. 14 punitive damages. you must put a proffer of evidence 15 the manslaughter standard, none of those facts 15 to support those allegations before you can actually 16 support those elements. 16 get punitive damages. Do you understand what I'm l'i Literally if you look at the cause of action 17 saying? 18 for abuse of process and what is required. it says: 18 MS. COLEMAN: Yes. I understand it, but with 19 Lack of probable cause would be listed. The case law 19 respect to properly pleading punitive damages. it's 20 is very clear that that isn't even enough to support 20 only in a wherefore clause. It's not pled. It's not 21 a cause of action for abuse of process. 21 part of the complaint. 22 But extortion and malice are all pan of the 22 THE COURT: I think that's the issue I have to 23 underlying cause of action for abuse of process. It 23 decide. You say it isn't. He says it is. 24 is an intentional tort. 24 MS. COLEMAN: In addition. I would just like to 25 Therefore. you must rise above the intentional '25 bring to the Court's attention -- I brought copies of 5 (Pages 17 to 20) WWW.USLEGALSUPPORT.COM 561-835-0220 EFTA01108186  21 1 previous orders, and they show that with respect to 2 denying the motion to dismiss. for example. you 3 stated: The motion to dismiss deals with the 4 truthfulness of the allegations against the 5 defendant. affirmative defenses that may be available 6 to the defendant and have references outside the four 7 comers of the complaint. These matters are more 8 appropriate for a subject of a motion for summary 9 judgment in their defenses at trial. The issues of 10 the litigation privilege and the issues as they 11 appear on face of the complaint — the claim his not 12 been raised before. 13 I would also submit to the Court. because we 14 just dismissed case without prejudice. that issue 15 with respect to the motion for prosecution has not 16 yet been heard before the Court either. For those 17 reasons. Judge. this is not a rehearing. 18 THE COURT: I'm going to have to take a look at 19 this again. Okay? You want to give me the ceder? 20 MS. COLEMAN: Those are copies of your orders. 21 previous orders. Judge. 22 THE COURT: You should get an order shortly. 23 Thank you. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much. Your Honor. 25 The proceedings concluded at 8:40 a.m.) 22 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 - - - 3 I. Susan Petty. Florida Professional Reporter, 4 certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically 5 report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript. 6 pages I through 22, is a true and complete record of my 7 stenographic notes. 8 9 Dated this 15th day of February, 2013. 10 11 12 13 14 • S ttY 15 Florida Professional Reporter Notary Public. State of Florida 16 Commission No.: #DD 985956 Commission Expires: April 26. 2014 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 (Pages 21 to 22) WWW.USLEGALSUPPORT.COM 561-835-0220 EFTA01108187  Page 1 A amended 3:19 4:16 believe 15:22 14:20 20:20 abandoned 10:19 11:16 12:2 Bellsouth 8:5 clear 3:25 4:10 5:23 absence 10:12 amending 14:23 bona 10:5,10,21,24 6:21 7:8,24 10:23 absent 7:22 amendment 15:14 11.6,10,12 15:3 18:20 Absolute 8:24 amount 17:20 Boulevard 2:8 clearly 8:9 9:16 16:10 absolutely 12:22 apologize 20:8 Bradley 1:8 2:7 client 18:2 abuse 5:21 6:8,9,22 7:2 appear 21:11 Brief 17:1 Cole 8:23 7:13,18 8:1,3 12:10 APPEARANCES 2:1 bring 20:25 Coleman 2:3,6 3:12,15 14:2 16:16 18:8,18,21 applicability 8:10 9:19 brought 6:15 13:12,13 3:16 17:2,10,19 18:5 18:23 application 13:16 15:17 20:25 19:19,25 20:6,18,24 accused 11:2 applying 8:6 bunch 18:4 21:20 act 7:14 8:17,25 9:1 appropriate 9:15 21:8 come 3:12 acted 16:4 April 22:16 C comfortable 3:14,15 action 4:18 5:20,22,25 argue 17:11 case 1:2 4:13 5:10 6:15 commencement 10:8 6:7,9 7:5,6 8:11 9:5 argued 13:3,10 17:22 7:8,11,24 10:18 11:5 Commission 22:16,16 9:20,23 10:4 11:6,13 argument 6:6,16 13:25 11:7,9,12 16:24 17:6 committed 5:13 11:22 17:17 18:8,10 arguments 3:21 12:7,9 17:20 18:19 21:14 common 19:10 18:17,21,23 12:12,14 cases 7:9 15:21 19:20 Communications 8:5 actions 6:11 arises 8:16 ease-in-chief 10:2 complaint 3:10 4:16,23 acts 5:13 8:14 asked 9:17 causation 10:9 6:3,12,20,25 7:3,6 8:9 add 3:20 19:11 asks 7:16 cause 4:18 5:20,22,25 8:13 9:6,15,18 10:15 added 16:18 assert 3:25 14:12,14,24 6:7,9 7:23,25 9:22 10:20 12:16 13:17 addition 5:15 8:22 9:9 asserted 5:20 15:14 10:4 11:6,13,22 17:17 14:16 15:6 16:14 19:2 11:3 20:24 16:16 18:7,7,17,19,21,23 19:5,12,13 20:13,21 additional 5:11 19:4 assertion 14:22 causes 18:10 21:7,11 address 14:4 assertions 17:4,5 CERTIFICATE 22:1 complete 22:6 addressed 14:11 asserts 9:6 14:20 certify 22:4 completely 9:20 addressing 12:6 assessing 5:2 change 4:21 9:24 14:18 concise 16:11 adequacy 12:10 13:7 attack 12:9 14:19,19 concluded 21:25 14:4,10 16:19 attacking 13:7 changed 16:15 conclusions 15:8 adequate 16:20,21 attempted 13:9 changes 6:7 conclusive 8:10 adjectives 4:10 15:7 attention 20:25 Changing 4:23 confined 6:19 admission 4:21 6:11 attorney's 19:13,14 character 5:6 considered 8:8 affirmative 7:4 21:5 authorized 22:4 charges 16:7 constitutes 7:15 affirmatively 8:9 9:15 available 21:5 circuit 1:1,1 8:6 Construction 4:14 afforded 8:13,24 aware 5:5 circumvented 4:1 contention 13:25 affords 9:1I a.m 1:16,16 21:25 citations 3:6 context 13: 11,13 14:8 agreed 11.20 cite 7:9 copies 20:25 21:20 B cited 17:9 copy 3:10 15:5 AL 2:8 Alamo 10:16 bar 8:10 civil 4:4 15:12,17 corners 6:12,20,24 9:18 allegations 4:16 6:4 bars 9:20,20 claim 3:20,25 4:11 5:2 21:7 12:15 14:1,5,10,16,25 based 10:25 17:19 6:2 7:2,13,18 8:1,4 count 10:20 15:7,8 16:15,20 18:1 basic 3:21 9:20 10:8,15,19 11:25 counterclaim 3:5,19 19:21,24 20:15 21:4 basically 3:22 13:8 14:2,12,14,22,24 11.16 12:2 allege 5:11 7:14 15:10 basis 5:18 13:24 14:24 15:9 16:1,16,17,18 counts 6:5 15:13,20,24 16:3,5 Beach 1:1,17,18 2:8,9 19:9 20:10,11,13 COUNTY 1:1,17 alleged 8:12 17:14 bears 9:3 21:11 course 6:13 8:18,25 20:12 beginning 16:21 claims 12:10 13:12,13 court 1:1 3:3,11,14,20 amend 14:12,23 behalf 2:2,7 3:17 14:18 15:16,17 16:5 3:24 5:1,5 6:14,19 7:9 behavior 9:2 clause 4:21,23 7:16 WWW.USLEGALSUPPORT.COM 561-835-0220 EFTA01108188  Page 2 8:21,22 9:10,17,24 14:8 21:2,3 face 6:24 7:3 9:16 21:11 gatekeeper 19:20 10:16,18 11:20 12:3,5 dismissal 6:6 7:13,17 faced 15:11 give 21:19 12:18,20,24 17:1,3,8 9:14,21 10:1,24 11:4 faces 15:11 given 3:6 17:12,25 19:16,20 dismissed 6:5 10:21 fact 4:25 7:5 8:12 11:8 go 19:10 20:4,7,22 21:13,16,18 11:14 12:2 21:14 13:19 15:1 16:15 going 7:8 19:5 21:18 21:22 Dixie 1:18 17:24 20:12 Good 12:4 COURTHOUSE 1:17 docket 7:1 facts 4:8,17 5:11 7:19 governs 4:5 COURTROOM 1:17 doing 8:16 9:4 11:19,21 16:11 grant 3:24 13:5 Court's 6:18 20:25 due 8:17 17:13 18:15 19:24,25 granted 14:11,23 criminal 15:11,16 20:2,5,9,12 granting 13:20 CROW 1:13 E factual 5:18 14:15 15:6 Gresh 7:11 Echevarria 8:23 15:8 gross 5:6,12 D Edwards 1:8 2:7 3:18 factually 16:6 guilt 11:1 damage 16:1 3:24 4:2,20 5:11,21 fail 9:4 guise 13:7 damages 3:20,23,25 4:3 5:24 6:10,11,24 7:6 failed 14:1 4:5,19,22 5:3,4,19 6:2 8:12 9:4,6 10:3,6,19 fails 5:11 6:3 7:14 19:2 H 6:4 7:17,17,21 8:2 11:16 13:12 15:20 failure 10:14 HADDAD 2:3,6 9:21 10:13 11:17,25 16:8 false 18:2 heard 12:12 21:16 13:8 14:5,13,14,22,24 effort 16:2 fatal 10:15 HEARING 1:13 15:4,9,25 16:12,18,19 either 21:16 favor 10:6,11 heightened 4:6,24 5:18 17:16,24 18:11 19:1,8 elements 5:22 10:7,14 February 1:15 22:9 6:1 7:25 11:23 19:12,17,23 20:3,14 18:7,10,16 19:1,12 fees 19:13,15 highlighted 3:10 15:5 20:16,19 entire 10:15 fide 10:5,11,21,24 11:6 Highway 1:18 date 16:24 entirely 13:22 11:10,12 hold 7:21 Dated 22:9 entitlement 16:12 FIFTEENTH 1:1 Honor 3:10 12:4,12,13 DAVID 1:13 Epstein 1:4 2:2 3:3,17 fifth 15:14 12:15,21 13:4,10,15 day 22:9 5:14 6:10 9:8,25 10:2 file 9:8 11:16 13:1 13:20 14:7,11,17 15:5 DCA 4:15 5:10 7:11,12 10:19 11:5 13:14 filed 3:18 10:1 16:25 21:24 DD 22:16 15:11,13,22,22,24 finally 8:3 9:22 16:23 HONORABLE 1:13 deals 21:3 16:3,5 finding 19:6 Honor's 13:18 decide 20:23 Epstein's 16:2 first 3:21 4:15 5:20 horrible 19:21 decided 15:18 equivalent 5:8 7:12 14:7,9 17:2 defamatory 9:2 ESQUIRE 2:6,10 I flagrant 5:6,13 defendant 3:8 9:11 ET 2:8 Florida 1:1,18,23 2:4,9 immediately 8:16 10:10 21:5,6 everybody's 19:17 4:4,15 7:12 8:6,21,22 immunity 8:13,24 9:11 Defendants 1:9 evidence 14:15 15:2,3 10:18 22:3,15,15 important 5:15 defense 7:4 8:10 9:12 20:14 foregoing 22:5 include 18:1 9:16 15:16,19 evidencing 5:7 Fort 2:4 included 14:16 defenses 21:5,9 evidentiary 19:8 forth 5:18 16:10 inconsistent 11:1 defined 11:8 exactly 20:1 found 12:15 Incorporated 4:14 delineated 6:18 examined 13:15 four 3:21 6:12,20,24 indication 15:3 Della-Donna 5:10 example 21:2 9:18 21:6 indifference 5:7,13 demonstrating 4:8 excuse 6:10 10:3 fourth 3:19 5:10 7:11 individually 1:7,8 denied 16:22 exists 16:13 11.16 12:1 information 19:7 DENNEY 2:8 Expires 22:16 four-year-old 16:24 informed 14:17 denying 21:2 extortion 15:18 18:6,22 FPR 1:22 22:14 initial 11:22 determination 13:4 extortionate 16:2 Fridovich 8:20,21 insufficient 4:11,17 discovery 19:6 functionally 8:15 intention 13:18 15:15 dismiss 3:4,18 6:15,21 F intentional 5:8 18:24 8:8 11:18,21 12:17 F 8:6 G 18:25 WWW.USLEGALSUPPORT.COM 561-835-0220 EFTA01108189  Page 3 interpreting 11:9 8:14 9:5,6,11,19 necessity 20:10 20:19 Investments 7:9 21:10 need 13:4 pleadings 13:8 18:13 involves 9:1 little 11:18 new 13:24 please 12:5 irrefutably 7:5 Logan 9:9 North 1:18 pled 10:19 19:4,25 issue 3:22 6:23 8:4 long 9:3 Notary 22:15 20:20 12:18 16:23 17:14 look 9:17 18:17 21:18 note 5:15 podium 3:13 20:22 21:14 notes 22:7 point 7:19 9:24 10:16 issued 7:15 M notice 10:1 13:19 11:15 17:3 20:1,1 issues 13:14,21 18:6 magic 18:14 notion 14:8 pointed 7:5 21:9,10 main 9:6 number 6:16,17 19:2,3 position 17:6,8,10 making 20:1 prejudice 10:2,21,24 J malice 5:21,24 6:2 7:22 O 11:4 21:14 J 1:8 2:7 8:1 10:12 16:4 18:6 obligation 4:2 preliminarily 8:19 JACK 2:10 18:22 obviated 4:1 prerequisite 14:21 Jackson 8:5 malicious 9:23 10:5,7 obvious 11:3 present 10:10 17:19 Jeffrey 1:4 2:2 11:13 12:11 14:3 occasions 13:10,11 previous 21:1,21 judge 3:12,16 4:24 5:15 16:17 17:25 occurred 6:12 7:7 9:25 previously 6:14 14:17 7:3,16 8:4,22 9:9,14 maliciousness 4:12 occurring 8:25 14:19 9:22 11:3,11,15 12:1 Mancusi 10:17 OFFICES 2:3 privilege 7:4 8:4,7,14 17:2,11,11 18:5 19:8 mandates 9:21 Okay 3:11 12:3 17:1 9:7,11,19 15:14,15 19:23 21:17,21 manslaughter 5:5 21:19 21:10 judgment 21:9 18:15 oppression 4:9 probable 7:23,24 10:12 judicial 1:1 8:15,18,25 Marty 7:11 order 6:15,18 12:8 18:7,19 10:9 matter 4:18 14:6 16:8 21:22 Procedure 4:5 16:22 19:22 orders 21:1,19,20,21 proceeding 3:22 8:16 K matters 21:7 outrage 4:9 8:18 9:1,3 10:9 kinds 19:21 ma'am 3:11 20:7 outside 7:7,19 9:5,18 proceedings 3:1 21:25 knew 16:5,7 18:3 mean 4:24 18:3 21:6 22:5 know 16:10 means 11:10 process 5:21 6:8,10,22 mep@searcylaw.com P L 6:22 7:2,7,13,15,18,20 2:10 pages 1:14 22:6 8:1,3 12:11 14:2 lack 18:6,19 mere 4:10 7:22 9:12 Palm 1:1,17,18 2:8,9 Lakes 2:8 16:17 18:8,18,21,23 merely 15:7 Paragraph 15:10,13,20 19:6 language 18:14 Middleburke 9:9 15:24 16:3,4 Lauderdale 2:4 Professional 1:23 22:3 misconduct 5:12 part 16:1,2 18:22 20:21 22:15 law 2:3 3:25 4:9,18 5:23 Payless 7:10 misuse 6:22 7:15 proffer 15:1,2 16:13 6:21 7:8,24 8:7,17 Monday 1:15 permitted 3:19 8:17 9:8 10:23 11:9,9 16:9 17:23 18:12 19:3,8 monetary 15:25 11:7 19:7,14 20:14 17:5,20 18:19 morning 12:4 Petty 1:22 22:3,14 lawsuit 9:8 proof 19:4 motion 3:4,5,18 6:21 placed 16:23 proper 5:2 6:17 7:13,18 leave 3:24 14:12,23 7:1 8:8 11:17,21 12:7 plain 6:24 11:20 16:11 properly 4:2 5:17,24 legal 10:9 13:14 15:19 plaintiff 1:5 5:16 7:14 12:17,23,25 13:1,20 9:7 20:19 legally 19:14 10:10,11 14:11,13 16:22 21:2,3 proposition 4:13 8:20 Leuare 4:13 Plaintiff/Counter-De... 21:8,15 9:7 10:16 level 18:13 motions 6:14 3:4 liability 9:13 15:12