Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-33139House OversightOther

Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages – Edwards vs. Epstein

The document is a routine civil procedure filing that discusses summary judgment standards and argues that Edwards' conduct cannot form the basis of liability. It contains no specific allegations, nam The filing is a motion to renew a request for punitive damages in a case titled Edwards adv. Epstein It cites Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and case law to argue against summary judgment. No concr

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #013401
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The document is a routine civil procedure filing that discusses summary judgment standards and argues that Edwards' conduct cannot form the basis of liability. It contains no specific allegations, nam The filing is a motion to renew a request for punitive damages in a case titled Edwards adv. Epstein It cites Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and case law to argue against summary judgment. No concr

Tags

punitive-damagescivil-litigationlegal-filinglegal-exposurehouse-oversightsummary-judgment

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages ARGUMENT IL. THE RECORD AND PROFFERED EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT EDWARDS’S CONDUCT COULD NOT POSSIBLY FORM THE BASIS OF ANY LIABILITY IN FAVOR OF EPSTEIN A. The Summary Judgment Standard. Rule 1.510(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that a court may enter summary judgment when the pleadings, depositions and factual showings reveal that there is no genuine issue. of material fact and that the moving-party is entitled to judgment as-a-matter of law. See: - Snyder-vCheezem Development Corp.; 373-So: 2d 719,720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)Rulesl .510(c); 8 + Fla. R. Civ. P. Once the moving party conclusively establishes that the nonmoving party cannot prevail, it is incumbent on the nonmoving party to submit evidence to rebut flies motion for summary judgment. «See-Holl v.-Talcott;: 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966). It is not enough for the~ opposing party merely to assert that an issue of fact does exist. Fisel v. Wynns, 667 So.2d 761, 764 (Fla.1996); Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1979) (same). Moreover, it is well-recognized that the non-moving party faced with a summary judgment motion supported by appropriate proof may not rely on bare, conclusory assertions found in the pleadings to create an issue and thus avoid summary judgment. Instead, the party must produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact. See Bryant v. Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., 479 So.2d 165, 168 (Fla. ist Dist. Ct. App. 1985); see also Lanzner v. City of North Miami Beach, 141 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d Dist Ct. App. 1962) (recognizing that mere contrary allegations of complaint were not sufficient to preclude summary 8

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.