HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013375.jpg

present evidence rebutting the motion for summary judgment and there is no genuine issue of material fact, then entry of judgment is proper as a matter of law. See Davis v. Hathaway, 408 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla, 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1982); see also Holl, 191 So. 2d at 43. B. Epstein’s Claim Regarding Edwards Have Absolutely No Factual Basis. This is not a complicated case for granting summary judgment. To the contrary, this is a simple case for summary judgment because each and every one of Epstein’s claim against Edwards lacks any merit whatsoever.!: 1, Epstein’s allegations regarding Edwards’ involvement in Rothstein’s “Ponzi Scheme” are unsupported and unsupportable because he was simply not involved in any such scheme. a. Edwards Had No Involvement in the Ponzi Scheme. The bulk of Epstein’s claims against Edwards hinge on the premise that Edwards was involved in a Ponzi scheme run by Scott Rothstein. Broad allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Edwards are scattered willy-nilly throughout the complaint. None of the allegations provide any substance as to how Edwards actually assisted the Ponzi scheme, and allegations that he “knew or should have known” of its existence are based upon an impermissible pyramiding of inferences. In any event, these allegations all fail for one straightforward reason: Edwards was simply not involved in any Ponzi scheme. He has provided sworn testimony and an affidavit in support of that assertion, and there is not (and could never be) any contrary evidence. Edwards has now been deposed at length in this case. As his deposition makes crystal clear, he had no knowledge of any fraudulent activity in which Scott Rothstein may have been ' A decision by the Court to grant summary judgment on Epstein’s claims against Edwards would not affect Epstein’s claims against Scott Rothstein. Epstein has already chosen to dismiss all of his claims against L.M., the only other defendant named in the suit, 6 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013375