EFTA00724224.pdf

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50 2009CA040800XXXXMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. ED DS, individually , and individually, Defendants. EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO ROTHSTEIN'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, submits his response in opposition to Defendant, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN'S ("Rothstein") Motion to Set Aside Default, and states: Background and Procedural Posture 1. Epstein filed the instant action against Rothstein and others on December 9, 2009. 2. Rothstein was the former Chairman and CEO of the now defunct law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). Rothstein was a licensed, bona fide litigator, not a lay person unfamiliar with lawsuits and legal process. 3. Rothstein was indicted and pled guilty to five counts including racketeering, money laundering and fraud related to a massive Ponzi scheme he conducted through RRA. His sentencing is scheduled for June 9, 2010. 4. On December 09, 2009, Rothstein was personally served with the summons and Complaint in this action. See Verified Return of Service attached as Exhibit A and Affidavit of Carlos Aguirre, process server, attached as Exhibit B. EFTA00724224  5. As set forth in Mr. Aguirre's affidavit, Rothstein was in a hallway, out of his cell, with other prisoners, when a guard called his name and he came forward. See Exhibit B ¶5. Mr. Aguirre then "personally placed the Complaint and Amended Summons in Mr. Rothstein's hands and advised him that he was being served with a lawsuit. Mr. Rothstein turned and walked away with the papers I served him." Id. 6. On December 31, 2009, Epstein filed a Motion for Default due to Rothstein's failure to respond to the Complaint. 7. A default (attached as Exhibit C) was entered by the Clerk on January 21, 2010. 8. Over two months after being served with the Complaint, Rothstein filed a Motion to Set Aside Default on February 17, 2010. 9. Several weeks later and on the eve of the hearing on the Motion to Set Aside Default, Rothstein filed an affidavit on March 8, 2010 in support of his Motion to Set Aside Default (attached as Exhibit D). 10. The next day, March 9, 2010, a hearing was conducted on Rothstein's Motion to Set Aside Default and the Court deferred ruling so the parties could conduct discovery related to the motion (3/9/10 Order attached as Exhibit E). 11. On April 15, 2010, Epstein filed a Motion to Strike Affidavit of Scott Rothstein because Epstein was unable to depose Rothstein. 12. On April 23, 2010, the Court denied Epstein's Motion to Strike Affidavit of Scott Rothstein and granted an additional thirty (30) days to depose Rothstein (4/23/10 Order attached as Exhibit F). 13. However, Epstein has been unable to locate, let alone depose, Rothstein. 2 EFTA00724225  iderable difficulty locating 14. Indeed, Rothstein's own counsel has had cons 2010 article in the South Florida and communicating with his client. In an April 22, reported that Rothstein's counsel, Business Journal (attached as Exhibit G), it was substantial periods of time and Mark Nurik, Esq., was unaware of his client's location for has only had limited contact with Rothstein. s to locate and 15. Moreover, Epstein's counsel has made the numerous effort depose Rothstein, to no avail: Case Management a. Telephone conference with Lisa Kaye, in Miami — was Coordinator/Legal Liaison at the Federal Detention Center information on his advised they do not have custody of Rothstein, have no ; whereabouts and could not assist in coordinating his deposition was advised they are b. Telephone conference with U.S. Marshal's office — d not give provide not responsible for coordinating depositions and woul any information regarding Rothstein. tor in Washington c. Telephone conference Bureau of Prisons Inmate Loca D.C. — was advised they have no record of Scott Rothstein; advised they had d. Telephone conference with Port St. Lucie Jail — was ation on his custody of Rothstein for brief period, but had no inform whereabouts; a call; e. Two voicemails for Bureau of Prisons — never returned Paul Schwartz — f. Two letters and two voicemails for United States Attorney never returned a call or responded to letters; and r returned call. g. Voicemail for United States Attorney Jeff Kaplan — neve Legal Standard - Setting Aside Default establish (1) 16. It is axiomatic that a party moving to set aside a default must neglect in failing to due diligence in moving to set aside the default; (2) excusable the allegations of the respond to the complaint; and (3) a meritorious defense to 3 EFTA00724226  (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). complaint. See Hill v. Murphy, 872 So. 2d 919, 921 lt bears the burden of 17. The party seeking to set aside the defau se and due diligence. See Zivitz demonstrating excusable neglect, a meritorious defen v. Zivitz, 16 So. 3d 841,849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) vacate a default is 18. The standard of review for an order denying a motion to s v. Qualico Development, Inc., whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Szuc 893 So. 2d 708, 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). torious Defense Rothstein's Affidavit Does Nothing to Establish a Meri s defense, the 19. Courts have repeatedly held that to establish a meritoriou ing the defense or a sworn defendant must tender either a defensive pleading show oriou s defense. See Hill v. motion or affidavit stating the facts supporting the merit Murphy, 872 So. 2d 919, 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). n to set aside a 20. In Hill, the defendant filed an affidavit in support of a motio agreement with plaintiffs. See default in which he asserted that he did not enter into an assertion does constitute a Hill, 872 So. 2d at 921. The court found that "[w]hile this orious defense" because factual allegation in an affidavit, it does not establish a merit rvision, civil conspiracy and the causes of action against the defendant (negligent supe between [the parties]." Id. FDUTPA) "[do not] depend on the existence of a contract meet the substance of The court went on to note that "[a] factual allegation that does not a 'meritorious' defense." Id. the allegations against the affiant does and cannot state trial court did not abuse its (Emphasis added). Accordingly, the court concluded that the discretion in refusing to set aside the clerk's default. Id. is a far cry 21. Rothstein did not tender a defensive pleading and his affidavit 4 EFTA00724227 from establishing a meritorious defense. While he claims to have "many meritorious defenses to the Complaint," he only purports to describe one, which constitutes neither a factual nor legal defense to any of the counts in the Complaint. 22. The crux of Rothstein's purported defense is that co-Defendant, Bradley Edwards (a former RRA attorney), filed lawsuits against Epstein on behalf of his clients prior to joining RRA and that these "were and are real cases, with real plaintiffs that have real claims against Epstein." See Exhibit D ¶9. Then, without any explanation, Rothstein makes the conclusory assertion that these facts "go[] against several counts in the Complaint, including, but not limited to, the RICO count." 23. From his affidavit, it appears that Rothstein has still not read the Complaint. 24. The Complaint, in no uncertain terms, acknowledges that and ea are in fact real plaintiffs who have filed real cases. Indeed, the Complaint alleges that Rothstein "[u]sed investor money to pay plaintiffs (i.e., and MI III 'up front' money such that plaintiffs would refuse to settle the Civil Actions." See Complaint ¶31.c. So it is unclear what defense Rothstein is attempting to establish by asserting that and are real plaintiffs with real cases, a fact alleged in the Complaint. 25. What is clear is that Rothstein's affidavit falls woefully short of demonstrating a defense, let alone a meritorious one, that would support setting aside the default and the Court should therefore deny Rothstein's motion. "A factual allegation that does not meet the substance of the allegations against the affiant does and cannot state a 'meritorious' defense." See Hill, 872 So. 2d at 921. 5 EFTA00724228  Rothstein's Failure to Respond to the Complaint Was Not the Result of Excusable Neglect 26. To set aside a default, Rothstein must also demonstrate excusable neglect in failing to respond to the complaint. See Hill 872 So. 2d at 921. Rothstein's affidavit does not controvert the fact he was personally served and demonstrates that he essentially ignored this lawsuit. Such indifference to legal process is inexcusable. 27. In Medcom USA, Inc. v. Ryder Homes & Groves, Co. 847 So. 2d 594, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), defendant moved to set aside a clerk's default and filed affidavits of its president, vice president and chief counsel, which asserted that defendant "had not been served with process; that [defendant's] first knowledge of the suit was the receipt of the final judgment ... and that the company had immediately retained counsel to take appropriate steps to respond to the action." The court affirmed the trial court's refusal to set aside default under these circumstances because the defendant's "bare allegations that [defendant's CEO] had not been served with process are not sufficient as a matter of law to impeach the process server's return of service and sworn statement that she personally served [defendant's CEO]." Id. See also Marceca v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 521 So. 2d 156, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (affirming trial court's denial of motion to set aside default where defendant's counsel intentionally or through gross neglect ignored the necessity to respond to the complaint and summons). The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Vanguard Security, Inc., 409 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding trial court properly denied defendant's motion to set aside default where defendant's assertions showed only that defendant ignored the complaint). 6 EFTA00724229  28. Rothstein does not contest the fact that he was properly served with the Complaint and Summons. Instead, he asserts that "I do not recall being served with this lawsuit" and "[i]f I was properly served with this lawsuit, it has been misplaced within the pile of numerous lawsuits and voluminous amount of other legal papers and has not been located." See Exhibit D ¶6. That Rothstein is the target of "numerous lawsuits" as a result of his fraudulent scheme does not excuse his failure to respond to the instant suit. 29. Rothstein also asserts that he "did not have knowledge of [this lawsuit] until February, 2010." See Exhibit D ¶2. However, if Rothstein was personally served with the Complaint and Summons (which he does not contest), it follows that he must have had knowledge of the lawsuit. Since Rothstein's affidavit does nothing to controvert the verified return of service or affidavit of Carlos Aguirre (Exhibits A and B, respectively), the Court must assume that the Complaint and Summons were properly served. See Medcom USA, Inc., 847 So. 2d at 596 (holding that bare allegations that defendant had not been served with process are not sufficient as a matter of law to impeach the process server's return of service and sworn statement that she personally served defendant). 30. Indeed, Rothstein had to be taken from his cell into a separate room to be served with the lawsuit, a fact he admits in his affidavit. See Exhibit D ¶4. This is a not a situation where, for example, a defendant's counsel's secretary misplaced a complaint and forgot to calendar a response deadline. To the contrary, Rothstein was an attorney (although disbarred) and former CEO of RRA, a law firm which employed over 70 lawyers, and was personally served with this lawsuit. Rothstein's affidavit does nothing 7 EFTA00724230 to establish that his failure to respond to the Complaint was a result of excusable neglect. 31. Rothstein's counsel, Mark Nurik, also asserts that he did not have knowledge of the lawsuit until "recently." See Motion to Set Aside Default ¶6 — 7. 32. However, nine separate news articles (attached as composite Exhibit H) including The Palm Beach Post (12/08/09), The Sun Sentinel (12/10/09), NBC Miami (12/08/09), The ABA Journal (12/09/09), South Florida Lawyers (12/10/09), huffingtonpost.com (12/11/09), The AmLaw Daily (12/08/09), Business Insider (12/10/09) and Courthouse News (12/16/09), reported Epstein's lawsuit against Rothstein. Notably, the articles were published within days of Rothstein being served with this lawsuit (December 9, 2009). Thus, Rothstein's and Nurik's assertions that they had no knowledge of this case until "recently" are belied by the widespread media coverage. 33. Given the foregoing, it can hardly be said that Rothstein ignoring the properly served Complaint and Summons constitutes excusable neglect. 34. Unlike Medcom, where the defendant asserted he was not served (and in which the court nevertheless found said assertion insufficient), Rothstein does not even contest the fact he was served; he just does not remember it. How convenient, yet insufficient. 35. As his assertions do not come close to rising to the level of excusable neglect, the Court should deny Rothstein's Motion to Set Aside Default. Rothstein Fails to Establish Due Diligence in Moving to Set Aside the Default 36. Last, Rothstein must establish he acted with due diligence in moving to set 8 EFTA00724231 aside the default. See Hill, 872 So. 2d at 921. 37. Rothstein, in his affidavit, asserts that he learned of the lawsuit and default at some unspecified time in February, 2010 and then "immediately contacted [his] attorney and advise him of same which prompted the filing of my Motion to Set Aside Default and this Affidavit in Support thereof." See Exhibit D ¶8. 38. However, Rothstein fails to explain how he learned of this lawsuit or exactly when in February, 2010 he learned of it. 39. Rothstein filed his Motion to Set Aside Default on February 17, 2010. If Rothstein learned that a default was entered against him on February 1, 2010, for example, but failed to file anything for over three weeks, it can be argued he failed to exercise due diligence in moving to set aside the default. 40. But since Rothstein does not articulate how or exactly when he learned of the default, it is unclear whether Rothstein acted with due diligence in moving to set aside the default entered against him. 41. Accordingly, Rothstein has failed to meet his burden to establish the due diligence element. See Zivitz 16 So. 3d at 849 (holding that the party seeking to set aside the default has the burden to demonstrate due diligence in seeking relief from default, excusable neglect and a meritorious defense). Conclusion 42. Since Rothstein has failed to establish a meritorious defense to the allegations in the Complaint, excusable neglect in failing to respond to the Complaint and due diligence in moving to set aside the default, the Court must deny Rothstein's Motion to Set Aside Default. 9 EFTA00724232  Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this day of May 2010: Gary M. Farmer, Jr., Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. & Lehrman, PL 250 Australian Avenue South 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Suite 1400 le, FL 33301 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Fax: Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Jack Scarola, Esq. Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Counsel to Scott Rothstein Shipley, P.A One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 West Palm Beach. FL 33409 SF " orneys for Defendant Bradley Edwards BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 303 Banyan Boulevard Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Fax e D. Critton, Jr. .Florida Bar #224162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 10 EFTA00724233  ;I VERIFIED RETURNOF SERVICE 11 IN THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND!OR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA TYPE OF WRIT: AMENDED MMONS & COMPLAINT CASE NO: 502009CA040800XXXXMB AG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS) JEFFREY EPSTEIN vsk. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually et-al.. TO: Scott Rothstein. Register #91256-004 clo FDC, Miami Federal Detention Center 33 NE 4I" Street Miami, FL. 33132 PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST OF: ROBERT D. CRI ON. JR., ESQ.,WHOSE OFFICE IS LOCATED AT: 303 BANYAN BLVD., SUITE 400. WEST PALM BEAC FL 33401 ICARLOS AGUIRRE C.P.S # 810 RECEIVED THIS PROCESS ON: 1219109 O 8:00am AND SERVED THE SAME ON: 12/9/09 O 8:45am IN RfADE COUNTY FLORIDA. ( X ) INDIVIDUAL SERVICE. BY SERVING THE PERS N NAMED HEREIN A COPY OF THE AMENDED SUMMONS COMPLAINT, PETITION OR INITIAL PLE ING. COMMENTS: DESCRIPTION OF PERSON SERVED: WHITE MALE, 47 YEARS OLD, ABOUT 5'7 ABOUT 2001bs., GREY SHORT HAIR. I ACKNOWLEDGE, THAT I AM A CERTIFIED PROCESS SERVER IN THE CIRCUIT IN WHICH THIS PROCESS WAS SERVED AND THAT I RAVE NO IN REST IN THIS MATTER. UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. I DECLARE THAT littEAD THE FOREGOING VERIFIED RETURN OF SERVICE AND THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUR CARLOS AGUIRRE C.P.S # 810 EXHIBIT tr EFTA00724234  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro.1201 Plaintiff, CASE NO.502009CA040800X)00(MB AG v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, Individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Individually, S ., individually, Defendants. AMENDED SUMMONS (Have not attempted to serve — Amended only as to Place of Service) PERSONAL SERVICE ON A NATURAL PERSON TO DEFENDANT(S): Scott Rothstein, Register #91256-004 do FDC, Miami Federal Detention Center 33 NE 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 IMPORTANT A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is served on you to file a written response to the attached complaint/petition with the Clerk of this Court. A phone call will not protect you. Your written response, including the case number given above and the names of the parties, must be filed if you want the Court to hear your side of this case. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money, and property may thereafter be taken without further warning from the Court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attomey right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may call an attorney referral service or a legal aid office (listed in the phone book). SHARON R. BOCK Clerk & Comptroliei P.O. Box 4667 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-4667 EFTA00724235  vs. Case No: If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written response to the Court you must also mail or take a copy of your written response to the "Plaintiff/Plaintiff's Attorney" named below. ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 303 Banyan Boulevard Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 THE STATE OF FLORIDA: TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the complaint/petition in this action the above-named Defendant. DATED ON December 8.2009 SHARON R. BOCK CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT (SEAL) EpNA SMITH BY: DEPUTY CLERK (See Reverse Side) (Vease al reves) (Voir de L'autre cote de) EFTA00724236  vs. Case No: IMPORTANTE Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tine 20 Dias, contados a partir del recibo de esta notificacion, para contestar la demanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentarla ante este tribunal. Una llamada atelefonica na lo protegera. Si usted desea que el tribunal considere su defensa, debe presentar su respuesta por escrito, incluyendo el numero del caso y los nombres de las partes interesadas. Si usted no contesta la demanda a tiempo, pudiese perder el caso y podria ser despojado de sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado de sus derechos, sin previo aviso del tribunal. Existen ostros requisitos legales. Si lo desea, puede usted consultar a un abogado immediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a una de las oficinas de asistencia legal que aparecen en la guia telefonica. Si desea responder a la demanda por su cuenta, al mismo tiempo en que presenta su respuesta ante el tribunal usted anviar por correo o entegar una copia de su respuesta a la persona deominada abajo como "Plaintiff/Plaintiff's Attomey" (Demandante o Abogado del Demandante). IMPORANT Des poursuites judiciares ont eta enterprises contra vous. Vous avez 20 jours consecutifs a partir de la date de l'assignation de cette citation pour deposer une reponse ecrite a la plaínte ci-jointe aupres de ce tribunal. Un simple coupe de telephone est insuffisant pour vous proteger. Vous etes oblige de deposer votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du numero de dossier ci-dessus et du nom des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que le tribunal entende voutre cause. Si vous ne deposez pas votre reponse ecrite dans le relai requis, vouc risquez de perdre la cause ainsi que votre salaire, votre argent, et vos biens peuvent etre saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis ulterieur du tribunal. II y a d'autres obligations juridiques et vous pouvez requerir les services immediats d'un avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d'avocat, vous pourriez telephoner a un service de reerence d'avocats ou a un bureau d'assistance juridique (figurant a l'annuaíre de telephones). Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une response ecrite, il vous faudra egalement, en meme temps que cette formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie de votre reponse ecrite au ”Plaintiff/Plaintiffs Attomey" (Plaignant ou a son avocat) nomme ci-dessous. EFTA00724237  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND Case No. 50 2009CA040800XXXXMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF CARLOS AGUIRRE STATE OF FLORIDA ) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared having personal knowledge and being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I, Carlos Aguirre, am certified by the State of Florida to serve legal process, C.P.S. #810. 2. I was hired by the law firm of Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman to serve process in this matter on the Defendant, Scott Rothstein. 3. On December 8, 2009, I contacted the Federal Bureau of Prisons via facsimile requesting to serve process on Scott Rothstein. 4. On December 9, 2009, I arrived at the Federal Detention Center in Miami, Florida and personally served Scott Rothstein with the Complaint and Amended Summons at approximately 8:45 a.m. 5. Mr. Rothstein was in a hallway, out of his cell, with other prisoners. A EXHIBITS_ EFTA00724238 guard called Mr. Rothstein's name and he came forward. I personally placed the Complaint and Amended Summons in Mr. Rothstein's hands and advised him that he was being served with a lawsuit. Mr. Rothstein then turned and walked away with the papers I served him. FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. Carlos Aguirre STATE OF FLORIDA MIAMI-DADE COUNTY I hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared Carlos Aguirre known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing Affidavit, who acknowledged before me that he/she executed the same, that I relied upon the / following form(s) of identification of the above named person: arn jdn., a(9 and that an oath was/war/et taken. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the Count and State last aforesaid this 'dayof , 2010. PRIN N (SEAL) NOTA PUBLIC/STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO.: Forifrocf, Nolery Public Stole of Florida JasoilRoberta MyCotiflncn 00949740 t o, 2 Expires 01/21/2014 EFTA00724239  F IN THE C_ _MIT COURT OF THE 1 12 IEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case Number: 502009CA040800XXXXMB Division: AO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff(s), -vs- SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRAIIEY J. EDWARDS individually and individually Defendant(s), DEFAULT A default is entered in the above styled cause against: SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually for failure to serve a pleading at the time required by law. DONE AND ORDERED at the Clerk's Office, City of West Palm Beach, this 21 day of JANUARY, 2010. Sharon R. Bock Clerk & Comptroller t..42 By: KIMBERLY BRADLEY Deputy Clerk Copies furnished to: BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP 303 BANYAN BLVD., STE 400, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401-4349 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY CJO FDC, MIAMI FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, 33 NE o f STREET, MIAMI, FL 33132 GARY FARMER , BSQ , 425 N. ANDREWS AVENUE, SUITE 2, FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 JOHN SCAROLA , ESQ , 2139 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33409 PADULA & GRANT, PLLC 365 E. PALMETTO PARK ROAD, BOCA RATON, FL 33432-5015 EXHIBIT e/ EFTA00724240  PP* IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2009 CA 040800 XXXXMB HONORABLE JUDGE DAVID F. CROW JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, and Defendants. AFFIDAVIT OF SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT STATE OF FLORIDA 55.: COUNTY OF Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared, SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, who after being by me first duly sworn, on oath, deposes and states as follows: 1. I am a Defendant in the above-captioned matter. 2. I did not respond to the Summons and Complaint in this lawsuit because I did not have knowledge of its existence until February, 2010. In February 2010, I learned that this lawsuit was filed against me and that a default judgment had been entered against me for failure to respond. 3. From December 1, 2009 until March 1, 2010, I was detained at the Federal Detention Center in Miami, Florida. On March 1, 2010,1 was transferred to the Port St. Lucie jail. FTL:1661522:1 EXHIBIT D EFTA00724241  4. During that time frame I was pulled out of my cell many times by the Bureau of Prisons staff to receive service of lawsuits at all hours. 5. Inasmuch as the Bureau of Prisons rules and regulations do not allow a prisoner to hand any documents to any visitors, including counsel, upon service of various lawsuits, I simply informed my attorney who would then look up the case with the appropriate court and contact the attorney for the plaintiffs) in such cases and/or take whatever appropriate action was necessary. 6. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I do not recall being served with this lawsuit. If I was properly served with this lawsuit, it has been misplaced within the pile of numerous lawsuits and voluminous amount of other legal papers and has not been located. Even to date, I have not located the Complaint or Plaintiff's Motion for Default.2 7. 1 state in good faith that if I had actual knowledge of this lawsuit I would have advised my attorney as I have done with various other lawsuits currently pending against me. 8. As soon as I learned of the lawsuit, I immediately contacted my attorney and advised him of same which prompted the filing of my Motion to Set Aside Default and this Affidavit in Support thereof. 9. I have a viable defense to the allegations contained in the Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein's ("Plaintiff" or "Epstein"), Complaint. Without providing a detailed response to the Complaint herein, just one of many meritorious defenses to the Complaint is that at least one, if not more, of the lawsuits against Plaintiff which he references as the basis of this instant lawsuit (the "Civil Actions"), was filed with the court on behalf of certain clients by a defendant herein, Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"), prior to his employment as an attorney at the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler ("RRA"). The fact that Edwards, prior to his employment with RRA, and prior 2 Since learning of this lawsuit, my attorney obtained a copy of the Complaint. 2 EFTA00724242 to our introductions with one another, already had client(s) suing Epstein in Civil Actions, goes against several counts in the Complaint, including, but not limited to, the RICO count. In fact, the Civil Actions filed by Edwards and/or other attorneys at RRA were and are real cases, with real plaintiffs that have real claims against Epstein and, this instant lawsuit is Plaintiffs feeble attempt to take advantage of my unfortunate circumstances to disqualify claims by real persons that deserve to have their day in court. 10. I respectfully submit that if the Court were to disallow my Motion to Set Aside Default, not only would I be extremely prejudiced inasmuch as I have viable defenses to the allegations contained in Plaintiffs Complaint, but the plaintiffs in the Civil Actions that Edwards and others at RRA filed against Epstein which he references in his Complaint in this matter would be prejudiced as well. A default entered against me in this matter would have the same effect as my admission to the assertions made by Plaintiff which would, in essence, allow Epstein to prevail against the plaintiffs in the Civil Actions on the basis that they are frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits, which they are not. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing affidavit and the facts stated in it are true. 3 EFTA00724243 STATE OF FLORIDA )ss.: 51-Lucto. cout‘le) BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, personally appeared SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, who after being by me first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that he is the Defendant in the above-styled c use; that he has read the foregoing Affidavit and the facts contained herein are true and correct. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this ceS day of Merl 2010, by SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, who is personally known to me or who has produced %Lucie Co•ASSX4 7—Qas identification. r-"?th,fO TARY PUBLIC eir Al ' E 1- 20 Typed or Printed N of Notary Public My commission expires: NOTARY PUBLICSTATE OF FLORIDA Patrick B. Hogan Commission #01)910543 Expires: SEP. 25, 2013 HOMO Ilato Anditalt IKRIDLNG CO, DC, 4 EFTA00724244  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro.1201 Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009CA040800)000(MB AG v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDVIDS, individually, and ., individually, Defendants.. ORDER ON DEFENDANT SCOTT ROTHSTEIN'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT THIS CAUSE came before the,Court on Defendant Scott Rothstein's Motion to Set Aside Default, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that said Defendant's Motion is hereby .grentedt _denied— , /2A-t cA.-/ dint) ) tx. --V- 1.);1-± /C#0(244-4 2 - 7t) Le- • &AV., astt, (i(ite., (21./r. 410,4 ( /f 1- . e yin d_.-71,J2_. ,l/t<:)77 0'7 DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County rthouse, Im Beach, .7?"4 Florida, this # day of iga/t-• 2010 ( David F. Crow Circuit Judge EXHIBIT E' Copied furnished to: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, MARC S. NURIK, ESQ., Law Offices of Mark S. Nurik, One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, GARY M. FARMER, JR., ESQ., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL.. 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, JACK SCAROLA, ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Attorbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 EFTA00724245  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro.1201 Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009CA040800XXXXMB AG v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and.., individually, Defendants. • / ORDER ON MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIDAVIT OF SCOTT ROTHSTEIN THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Motion to Strike Affidavit of Scott Rothstein, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that said Motion is hereby fi dlAittAl.v/ Attin -- an-L‘r,--e 12 vvie/ 61-4.--c-,s 7{7 aget-J /4,474 ---, 76 O 4 -6 , --1 ettoCez: O;1 4 46S -. DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach C Courtho se, est trn-Beach, Florida, this 6 2 day of David F. Crow Copied furnished to: Circuit Judge EXHIBIT E ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, MARC S. NURIK, ESQ., Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik, One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, GARY M. FARMER, JR., ESQ., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL. 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, JACK SCAROLA ESQ., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409, and JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 L. EFTA00724246 South Florida Business Journal: Rothstein sentencing moved to June 9 Page 1 of 2 Nein**1 Leal Na MOntererfr She,* Then "Mom err_ Tito Bank of Ample° cc4;'. Short Answer: Get advice. a lfiarehtR ..:.-ntOC•011r uCre: ennui with ours aa weeds al vetRoil autism* OM. Cueseenlis 4.tta ;:ospwar hum Fibrins ..... ...... sue 1 Nara 1 MN@ I J:CR JOURNAL Okiesedater at Bath Honda • 76M at I a S1. HOME Neva eadau.lilialt418 SALDISILMKTO REAL ESTATE MIRO MCVAY Gaga& TRAM MOPO MRCS MEbusiness news *et Tarr Bit Gears • Ossified& EmalNeils Baled Uses Steepen-a Freeissues ere weeder. ieces• sow *Phalli% Piet tee ill PtMa Etle'eAti sF100• 01• 0,01••• 14) 01. 8d h JO. ... . ... . MORE Scoff Rassfein• Preldry Up Blog: Scott Rothstein: Picking i SEARCH The Races up the Pieces , g aintnia,mpeGse clonmoitepseol,