EFTA00298999.pdf

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J, EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XxxxmBAG PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.110 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files his Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards' ("Edwards") Counterclaim, and states: 1. Epstein admits that the Counterclaim alleges an amout within the jurisdictional purview of the Court, but denies that Edwards is entitled to said amount. 2. Epstein is without knowledge as to Edwards' residential status, but admits that he is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. 3. Denied. 4. Epstein admits that he entered into a plea agreement that resulted in a felony conviction. Epstein further admits that the terms and conditions of the agreement speak for themselves. To the extent that Edwards has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 4 of his Counterclaim, Epstein denies the allegations. EFTA00298999 5. Epstein admits that he was a party to civil actions brought forth by purported victims, and that civil actions to which Epstein was a party settled, but is without knowledge as to any further investigation by federal law enforcement, any pending civil cases against Epstein by any purported victims, and Edwards' relationship with any other purported victims and therefore denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof. 6. Epstein admits that, at certain times in the litigation, he asserted his rights against self-incrimination as afforded to him by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Epstein denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 6 and demands strict proof thereof. 7. Epstein denies Paragraph 7, except for the allegation therein stating that Edwards is involved in pending litigation in Federal Court under the Federal Crime Victims' Right's Act. 8. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 8 and demands strict proof thereof. 9. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 9 and demands strict proof thereof. 10. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 10 and demands strict proof thereof. 11. Epstein admits that the causes of action asserted by him against Edwards in Epstein's initial Complaint are listed in Paragraph 11 and its subparts. However, Edwards fails to either attach the Complaint to which he is referring or otherwise identify the Complaint from which he derives his assertion. To the extent that Edwards has 2 EFTA00299000 inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 11 of his Counterclaim, Epstein denies the allegations. 12. Epstein admits that in his initial Complaint he asserted causes of action against Edwards as specifically stated above in Paragraph 11 and its subparts, but denies that he has ever asserted a cause of action for Civil Theft against Edwards as alleged in Paragraph 12. To the extent that Edwards has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision of Epstein's "Complaint" in Paragraph 12 of his Counterclaim.' Epstein denies the allegations. Epstein further denies the remaning allegations contained in Paragraph 12 and demands strict proof thereof. 13. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 13 and its subparts and demands strict proof thereof. 14. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 14 and demands strict proof thereof. IS. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 15 and demands strict proof thereof. 16. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 16 and demands strict proof thereof. 17. Epstein denies each and every allegation and claim for damages that is contained in Paragraph 17, including its subparts, and demands strict proof thereof. 18. Epstein admits that the Counterclaim alleges an amout within the jurisdictional purview of the Court, but denies that Edwards is entitled to said amount. Edwards fails to attach a copy of Epstein's Complaint or even reference the version of the Complaint to which he refers in this allegation. 3 EFTA00299001 19. Epstein is without knowledge as to Edwards' residential status, but admits that he is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. 20. Denied. 21. Epstein admits that he entered into a plea agreement that resulted in a felony conviction. Epstein further admits that the terms and conditions of the agreement speak for themselves. To the extent that Edwards has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 21 of his Counterclaim, Epstein denies the allegations. 22. Epstein admits that he was a party to civil actions brought forth by purported victims, and that civil actions to which Epstein was a party settled, but is without knowledge as to any further investigation by federal law enforcement, any pending civil cases against Epstein by any purported victims, and Edwards' relationship with any other purported victims and therefore denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof. 23. Epstein admits that, at certain times in the litigation, he asserted his rights against self-incrimination as afforded to him by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Epstein denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 and demands strict proof thereof. 24. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 24 and demands strict proof thereof. 25. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 25 and demands strict proof thereof. 26. Epestcin denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 26 and demands strict proof thereof. 4 EFTA00299002 27. Epstein admits that the causes of action asserted by him against Edwards in Epstein's initial Complaint are listed in Paragraph 27 and its subparts. However, Edwards fails to either attach the Complaint to which he is referring or otherwise identify the Complaint from which he derives his assertion. To the extent that Edwards has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 27 of his Counterclaim, Epstein denies the allegations. 28. Epstein admits that in his initial Complaint he asserted causes of action against Edwards as specifically stated above in Paragraph 27 and its subparts, but denies that Epstein has ever asserted a causc of action for Civil Theft against Edwards as alleged in Paragraph 28. To the extent that Edwards has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision of Epstein's "Complaint" in Paragraph 28 of his Counterclaim,2 Epstein denies the allegations. Epstein denies the remaning allegations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof. 29. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 29, including its subparts, and demands strict proof thereof. 30. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 30 and demands strict proof thereof. 31. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 31 and demands strict proof thereof. 32. Epstein admits that he has Amended his Complaint over the course of this litigation, and submits that while some counts were dismissed by the Court, without prejudice, this constitutes neither abandonment of Epstein's claims nor a bona fide Edwards fails to either attach the Complaint to his Counterclaim or reference the specific Complaint to which he is referring in Paragraph 28. 5 EFTA00299003 termination thereof. As such, Epstein denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 32 and demands strict proof thereof. 33. Epstein denies each and every allegation and claim for damages that is contained in Paragrapgh 33, including its subparts, and demands strict proof thereof. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his First Affirmative Defense, Epstein states that Edwards' Abuse of Process claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as is required under Rule 1.110 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Edwards did not, nor will he ever be able to, assert the three requisites required to properly plead same; to wit: 1) an illegal, improper, or perverted use of process after it issues (i.e., improper willful acts during the course of a prior action or after the filing of the Complaint); 2) an ulterior motive or purpose in exercising the illegal, improper, or perverted process; and 3) damages resulting therefrom. S & I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt, Inc., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (emphasis added); Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 24 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his Second Affirmative Defense, Epstein states that Edwards' Malicious Prosecution claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as is required under Rule 1.110 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the requisite of a "bone-tide termination of the original proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff" as delineated by the Florida Supreme Court as one of the legally-mandated elements to bring forth a Malicious Prosecution claim, has not been, nor can it be, satisfied. See 6 EFTA00299004 Alamo rent-A-Car v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Fla. 1994). The "original proceeding" to which Edwards refers in his Counterclaim is, in fact, the current litigation that is pending against him; to which there has not been an "ending in a manner indicating [Edwards'] innocence of the charges or allegations contained in the first suit." See Doss v. Bank of America, N.A., 857 So. 2d 991, 994 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). See also Yoder v. Adriatico. 459 So. 2d 449, 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (stating that the tort of malicious prosecution requires. as an element, the prior termination of that claim and therefore malicious prosecution may not be brought as a counterclaim). Indeed, it is well-settled law that an action for Malicious Prosecution cannot be filed until the original action is concluded, and that counts of a Complaint that are dismissed without prejudice are not deemed a "bona fide termination" in that party's favor. "Where dismissal is on technical grounds, for procedural reasons, or any other reason not consistent with the guilt of the accused, it does not constitute a favorable determination." Union Oil of California v. John Watson, 468 So. 2d 349 (3d DCA 1985). Accordingly, Edwards fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his Third Affirmative Defense, Epstein states that Edwards' Counterclaim fails to properly plead his damages as required as required under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Miami National Bank v. Nunez, 541 So. 2d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (stating that a litigant cannot recover as damages his own time for participating in a litigation when counsel is engaged to represent him). Edwards further pleads damages for injury to his reputation, mental anguish, anxiety, and embarassment, which are impermissible and improperly plead. 7 EFTA00299005 Most importantly, however, Epstein states that Edwards has not, nor will he, suffer any damages as a result of any actions allegedly taken by Epstein. In fact, this litigation with Epstein catapulted Edwards from an unknown solo practitioner to a partner at Rothstein. Rosenfeldt, Adler. Moreover, Edwards still utilizes his litigious association with Mr. Epstein at his new firm Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos, & Lehrman to disparage Epstein, to seek new clients on whose behalf he can sue Epstein, to attract additional plaintiffs for whom he can file suit, and to achieve notoriety with the press. See Composite Exhibit A attached hereto. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his Fourth Affirmative Defense, Epstein asserts that he is afforded absolute immunity pursuant to the "Litigation Privilege" because at all times his actions were connected with, relevant to, and material to. the cause at hand. The Litigation Privilege protects actions taken that are functionally tied to the judicial proceeding. Litigation privilege "arises immediately upon the doing of any act required or permitted by law in the duc course of the judicial proceedings or as necessarily preliminary thereto." Fridovich r. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1992). Epstein has not taken any action "outside the context of the judicial proceeding, such as...actions extrinsic to the litigation." Suchite r. Kleppin, 2011 WL 1814665. p."3 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (citing to American Nat. Title & Escrow of Florida. Inc. v. Guarantee Title & Trust, Co., 748 So. 2d 1054, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)); See also. Montejo v. Marlin Memorial Medical Center, Ina, 935 So. 2d 1266, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). 8 EFTA00299006 Defendant specifically reserves the right herein to amend these defenses and plead other affirmative defenses that may become known during his continuing investigation of this action and during discovery in this case. WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served, via electronic and US Mail, to all parties on the attached service list, this July 31, 2012. ja Haadad Coleman, Esq. Florida Bar No.: Tonia Haddad. PA 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff EFTA00299007 SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMl3AG Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA Marc Munk, Esq. Bradlcy J. Edwards, Esq. Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. LS Law Finn Four Seasons Tower 10 EFTA00299008