Edwards Opposes Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment in Abuse of Process Case

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