EFTA00584796.pdf
PDF Source (No Download)
Extracted Text (OCR)
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,
and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS,
individually,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 502009CA0408007OOOCMBAG
JUDGE: HAFELE
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RENEWED
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS OR ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO
CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE SET IN THIS MATTER
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his
undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 9.310 of the Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure, hereby requests that this Court stay these proceedings until the Florida
Supreme Court renders its Opinion on the certified conflict between the Fourth District
Court of Appeal's decision in this matter and the decision rendered by the Third District
Court of Appeal in Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Alternatively,
should this Court not enter an Order staying these proceedings, Epstein requests that this
Court continue the trial date it set for this matter. In support thereof, Epstein states:
Tonga Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330I• 954.467.1223
EFTA00584796
INTRODUCTION
On May 19, 2014, based upon the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in
Wolfe, this Court granted Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment as to both counts of
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards's ("Edwards") Complaint, Abuse of
Process and Malicious Prosecution, and entered Final Judgment in accordance therewith.
Edwards timely appealed this Court's ruling as to his Malicious Prosecution count to the
Fourth District Court of Appeal. The issue was fully briefed, and on November 12, 2015,
the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed this Court's ruling and certified conflict with
the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Wolfe. The Fourth District Court of
Appeal issued its Mandate on December I, 2015, and on December 10, 2015, Epstein
filed his Notice of Discretionary Jurisdiction seeking review by the Florida Supreme
Court. On December 15, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court filed an Order stating that
"[t]he proceedings in this Court in the above case are hereby stayed pending disposition
of Debrincat v. Fischer, Case No. SCI5-1477, which is pending in this Court."
Debrincat is the lead case in which the Florida Supreme Court will decide the certified
conflict issue.
On or about March 8, 2016, Epstein filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings or
Alternative Motion to Continue the Trial Date Set in this Matter. On or about March 22,
2016, this Court denied Epstein's Motion, without prejudice, stating that if there was
"movement" on the Debrincat v. Fischer matter, then it would entertain this Motion.
Since the March 22, hearing date, the Debrincat case has been fully briefed and Oral
Argument has been set before the Florida Supreme Court on the Debrincat case for
August 31, 2016. A true and correct copy of the Order granting and setting Oral
2
Tonja Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330I• 954.467.1223
EFTA00584797
Argument is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." Accordingly, as demonstrated more fully
below, staying these proceedings until such time as the Florida Supreme Court issues its
decision regarding the conflict between the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in
Wolfe and the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in the case at bench will both
conserve judicial resources and prevent interference with the jurisdiction of the appellate
court.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
This Court has the authority and discretion to grant Epstein's Motion. Gas
Investments v. Land 0' Sun Realty, Ltd., 643 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
("The granting of a stay of proceedings by a trial court, pending the outcome of an action
in another court, is in the broad discretion of the trial court."); Ricigliano v. Peat,
Marwick Main & Co., 585 So. 2d 387, 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, "this
discretionary power is not without limitation. The stay should be granted unless there are
special circumstances, such as undue delay by the first court, that warrant the denial of a
stay. Thus, absent any such special circumstances, a trial court abuses its discretion in
refusing to grant a stay based on the principle of priority." Spacebox Dover, LLC v.
LSREF2 Baron LLC, 112 So. 3d 751, 752-53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). See also Fedorov v.
Citizens State Bank, 24 So. 3d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
In the case at hand, it is proper for this Court to grant Epstein's Motion to Stay or
Continue this matter while the Florida Supreme Court is considering an issue that
involves the same issues as those with which these same parties are faced. Bergman v.
Kaplan, 922 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). In Bergman, the Fourth District Court of
3
Tonja Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330I• 954.467.1223
EFTA00584798
Appeal found that the trial court had departed from the essential requirements of the law
in denying the Petitioner's motion to stay the proceedings when there was a pending
appeal from an order that involved the same parties and issue. Id. The Bergman court
further opined that "[i]n these types of cases, courts have recognized the injurious affect
of multiple, conflicting orders and the need for the circuit courts not to interfere with the
jurisdiction of the courts of appeal when issues are then pending before them." Id. at 983.
See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Titusville Total Health Care, 848 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2003) ("Courts have often held that it is appropriate for one court to stay an action
in order to avoid a waste of judicial resources if a similar issue is pending in another
action and will be dispositive."); Solomon v. Gordon, 4 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla. 1941)
("Where two actions are pending between the same parties involving the same state of
facts and aiming to accomplish substantially the same result, the court may stay
proceedings in the latter action until the other shall have been heard and decided and the
same rule applies where the prior action is pending on appeal."); Pilevsky v. Morgans
Hotel Group Mgmt, LW, 961 So. 2d 1032, (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
The Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision to reject the applicability of the
Litigation Privilege to Edwards's Malicious Prosecution claim against Epstein in the
instant case is the sole appellate issue pending in the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida
Supreme Court stayed those proceedings pending its disposition of the appeal in
Debrincat regarding the conflicting opinions of the District Courts of Appeal as to the
applicability of the Litigation Privilege to a Malicious Prosecution claim. Irrefutably, the
Florida Supreme Court's resolution of that conflict, which is the same issue upon which
both the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision and this Court's granting of Summary
4
Tonja Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330I• 954.467.1223
EFTA00584799
Judgment herein were based, may dispose of the central issue of Epstein's liability in the
case at hand. Consequently, it would be a waste of judicial resources to proceed to trial
prior to the Supreme Court's resolution of this issue.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons above, and in reliance upon the case law cited above,
Epstein respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order Staying these proceedings
until such time as the Florida Supreme Court renders its decision, and such further and
other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served
upon all parties listed below, via Electronic Service, this May
2016.
/s/ Tonja Haddad Coleman
Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq.
Fla. Bar No.: 0176737
LAW OFFICES OF TONJA HADDAD, PA
315 SE 7th Street
Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(facsimile)
5
Tonja Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330I• 954.467.1223
EFTA00584800
SERVICE LIST - CASE NO. 502009CA0408003000CMBAG
Searcy Denney Scarola et al.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Jack Goldbe er Es..
Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA
250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Marc Ntwil Es
Es .
1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Bradle J. Edwards Es .
anner a e
eissing
wards Fistos Lehrman
425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Fred Haddad Es .
Fre Ha
a , PA
1 Financial Plaza, Suite 2612
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tonja Haddad Coleman Es. uire
Law Offices of Tonja Haddad, P.A.
315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Illi
earcy DenneyScarola et a.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.
Courthouse Commons, Suite 350
444 West Railroad Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
6
Tonja Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330I• 954.467.1223
EFTA00584801
Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A.
9350 S. Dixie Highway
Suite 1450
Miami, FL 33156
Tel. 305-670-1441
Fax 305-670-2202
7
Tonga Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330I• 954.467.1223
EFTA00584802
Document Preview
PDF source document
This document was extracted from a PDF. No image preview is available. The OCR text is shown on the left.
This document was extracted from a PDF. No image preview is available. The OCR text is shown on the left.
Extracted Information
Dates
Document Details
| Filename | EFTA00584796.pdf |
| File Size | 343.5 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 85.0% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 9,264 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-11T22:50:29.264112 |