HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013382.jpg

In any event, none of the allegations of “improper” process can survive summary judgment scrutiny, because every action Edwards took was entirely proper and reasonably calculated to lead to the successful prosecution of the pending claims against Epstein as detailed in Edwards’ Affidavit. , Epstein also fails to meet the second element of an abuse of process claim: that Edwards had some sort of ulterior motive. The case law is clear that on an abuse of process claim a “plaintiff must prove that the process was used for an immediate purpose other than that for which it was designed.” S&J Investments v. Payless Flea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4" Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Biondo v. Powers, 805 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 4" Dist. Ct. App. 2002). As.a consequence, “[w]here the process was used to accomplish the result for which it was intended, regardless of an incidental or concurrent motive of spite or ulterior purpose, there is no abuse of process.” Jd. (internal quotation omitted). Here, Edwards has fully denied any improper motive, See Statement of Undisputed Facts, and Epstein has no evidence of any such motivation. Indeed, it is revealing that Epstein chose not to ask even a single question about this subject during the depenftiors of Edwards. In addition, all of the actions that Epstein complains about were in fact used for the immediate purpose of furthering the lawsuits filed by L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. In other words, these actions all were both intended to accomplish and, in fact, successfully “accomplished the results for which they were intended” -- whether it was securing additional dixcavery or presenting a legal issue to the court handling the case or ultimately maximizing the recovery of damages from Epstein on behalf of his victims. Accordingly, Edwards is entitled to summary judgment on any claim that he abused process for this reason as well. 13 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013382