HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013306.jpg
Extracted Text (OCR)
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards’ Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 3 of 15
The record reflects that on the eve of the hearing of Edwards’ Motion for Summary Judgment
directed to the Second Amended Complaint and in light of the compelling evidence of the lack of any
wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Edwards, the sole remaining abuse of process claim was dismissed by
Epstein.
As discussed, infra each of the grounds asserted by Epstein in this Motion for Summary
Judgment must be rejected. The litigation privilege does not serve as a bar to the prosecution of Edwards’
claims against Epstein. Moreover, the evidence submitted by Edwards supports each of the elements of
the claims asserted by Edwards against Epstein which are identified in Epstein’s Motion.
Response to Epstein’s Statement of Undisputed Facts
The evidence marshalled by Edwards in support of his claims against Epstein which are
referenced in footnote 1 mandates the conclusion that, at a minimum, disputed facts exist with respect to
the elements of each claim addressed by Epstein in his Motion. The facts presented in the various papers
would allow the jury to make a determination that Epstein knew that Brad Edwards properly exercised his
legitimate judgment regarding the need to pursue proper and effective discovery against him to support
the claims which Epstein knew were legitimate. That evidence, referenced herein, further demonstrated
that Epstein filed his claims without probable cause and further that there was a bonafide termination in
favor of Edwards. That evidence further demonstrates that the elements of the claim of abusive process
have been established.
The following additional comments are directed at some of the key purported “undisputed”
material facts asserted by Epstein, especially those referenced in his Memorandum of Law. Also set forth
are key evidentiary matters which undermine Epstein’s contentions and which support the proposition
that material issues of fact exist which compel the denial of the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Judge Crow dated March 29, 2012; Exhibit “I” — Deposition of Bradley Edwards dated October 10, 2013; Exhibit
“J — Deposition of Bradley Edwards dated May 15, 2013.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013306
Extracted Information
Document Details
| Filename | HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013306.jpg |
| File Size | 0.0 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 85.0% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 2,263 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-04T16:19:05.283606 |