IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: 4D18-0762 Appellate Case No.: 4D18-0787 LT Case No: 502009CA040800XXXXMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Petitioner, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.320, requests oral argument in the consolidated appeals (Case Nos. 4D18-0762 and 4D18-0787) and as grounds states: Petitioner respectfully requests oral argument in his consolidated appeals from Judge Donald Hafele's March 8, 2018 rulings which resulted in two non-final orders, (1) granting Respondent Bradley J. Edwards' Motion for Separate Trials and (2) denying Petitioner's Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in Order to Comply with the Mandate in Rule 1.440. By the parties' stipulation and order of this Court, these two appeals were consolidated for panel purposes on March 16, 2018. EFTA00808506 The consolidated appeals concern a violation of the mandatory language in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 that requires a court to set an action for trial only when all claims and counterclaims are "at issue" and reported decisions from this Court and other appellate courts on the mandatory nature of the rule. See Labor Ready Se. Inc. v. Australian Warehouses Condo. Ass 'n, 962 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)(brought on final appeal, not mandamus, and therefore Rule 1.440 was "waived [by] the aggrieved party who appear[ed] at trial and raise[d] no objection to the noncompliance"); Genuine Pans Co. v. Parsons, 917 So. 2d 419, 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(issuing a writ of mandamus to enforce strict toning of Rule 1.440(c)); Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125, 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)("[A] party is absolutely entitled to strict conformance with the terms of rule 1.440, including its mandated fifty-day hiatus between the service of the last pleading and the trial date."); Bennett v. Conti Chemicals, Inc., 492 So. 2d 724, 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(Rule 1.440 "exempts only cross-claims from the determination of when an action is at issue."). The issues raised in these consolidated appeals were created by Edwards' eleventh-hour misuse of Rule 1.440 in a maneuvering effort to achieve severance or bifurcation of his counterclaim from the original claim filed by Epstein. Oral argument would benefit this Court in reviewing why Edwards' tactical gambit 2 EFTA00808507 should not be permitted to effect a violation of the mandatory requirements of Rule 1.440 under these circumstances. Rule 9.320(b) specifically contemplates oral argument in proceedings commenced by the filing of the instant petitions for a Writ of Mandamus and a Writ of Certiorari. This Court should grant oral argument because it will provide the necessary opportunity to fully discuss the applicable law, case history, and interrelationship of the Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards claim with the Edwards v. Epstein malicious prosecution counterclaim (that was filed in the same action only days later in 2009). Oral argument is crucial to a proper understanding as to why this Court should issue the writs of mandamus and certiorari in order to preserve the mandatory nature of Rule 1.440 and to prohibit the kind of gamesmanship attempted here that, if permitted, would only serve to undermine the rule's requirements in the future. Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court allow twenty (20) minutes for each side to present argument or answer questions that the Court may have following review of the record and briefs in this appeal. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully requests that this Court grant oral argument on the consolidated petitions for extraordinary relief 3 EFTA00808508 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this request was furnished via email this 19th day of March, 2018, to the following: Jack Scarola Karen E. Terry David P. Vitale, Jr. Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, . 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Philip M. Burlington Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rockenbach, . Courthouse Commons, Suite 350 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottinger LLC 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 Marc S. Nurik Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Jack A. Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, . 250 Australian Avenue S., Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 VIA U.S. MAIL The Honorable Donald W. Hafele Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10.1216 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter- Defendant Jed E , stein 4 EFTA00808509 LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 301 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 By: Scott J. Link (FBN Kara Berard Rockenbach (FBN Rachel Jenn Glasser FBN Primary: Primary: Primary: Secondary: Secondary: Secondary: [fax] Counsel for Petitioner, Jeffrey Epstein 5 EFTA00808510