#efta01122217
LightNews LightNews
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA01122217.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta01122217
https://epsteinweb.org
Available in the iOS app store now!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epstein-web/id6758880661
EFTA01122209 | EFTA01122217 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. Florida law) (citing State v. Cote, 547 So. 2d 993, 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)); Wright v. Yurko. 446 So.2d 1162, 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) "A determination of whether probable cause exists is based on the facts known by the defendant in the malicious prosecution action at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time." Gill, 82 F.Supp. 2d at 1364 (citing United States v. Irurzun, 631 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1980)). Here, the allegations in Epstein's lawsuit against Edwards, coupled with the irrefutable facts surrounding the underlying "Epstein Cases" and what was occurring at RRA during the time in question as delineated in the undisputed facts above, undeniably satisfy, as a matter of law, the extremely low threshold required for probable cause to file a civil suit against Rothstein and Edwards, which warrants Summary Judgment in Epstein's favor. In addition, the requisite "bone-fide termination of the original proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff' required for a malicious prosecution claim, has not been, nor can it ever be, satisfied. See 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 case Epstein voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. It is well-settled law that counts of a Complaint that are dismissed without prejudice are not deemed a "bona fide termination" in that party's favor. As stated by the Third District Court of Appeals when addressing the requirements of a bona fide termination: "[t]his is a fancy phrase which means that the first suit, on which the malicious prosecution suit is based, ended in a manner indicating the original defendant's (and current plaintiff's) innocence of the charges or allegations contained in the first suit, so that a court handling the malicious prosecution suit, can conclude with confidence, that the termination of the first suit was not only favorable to the defendant in that suit, but also that it demonstrated the first suit's lack of merit. Therefore, suits that terminate because of technical or procedural reasons or considerations other than the merits of the first suit, are not "bona fide terminations" and will not support a malicious prosecution suit. . ." Valdes v. GAB Robins North America, Inc., 924 So. 2d 862, 866-867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (emphasis added). Here, there is a single Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice which, irrefutably, is not a bona-fide termination, Cline v. Flagler Sales Cap., 207 So. 2d 709, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), and Edwards's case fails as a matter of law. -9- EFTA01122217
May 10, 2026 at 4:11 AM