Datasets:
title: 'House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12) (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013381)'
source: 'House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12)'
sourceUrl: https://www.justice.gov/epstein
date: '2026-01-01'
category: House Oversight
eftaNumber: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013381
ocrPages: 1
ocrChars: 1929
ocrElapsed: 0
parseTier: external-legacy
engine: engine undisclosed (ep-nov-12.greg.technology mirror)
externalSource: greg-ep-nov-12
externalLicense: not granted
externalCredit: ep-nov-12.greg.technology
externalUrl: https://ep-nov-12.greg.technology
particular case could have been resolved in that very case rather than now re-litigated in satellite litigation. Edwards is Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Claim of Abuse of Process Because He Acted Properly Within the Boundaries of the Law in Pursuit of the Legitimate Interests of his Clients. Epstein's Second Amended Complaint raises several claims of "abuse of process." An abuse of process claim requires proof of three elements: "(1) that the defendant made an illegal, improper, or perverted use of process; (2) that the defendant had ulterior motives or purposes in exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use of process; and (3) that, as a result of such action on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff suffered damage." S & I Investments v. Payless Flea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909, 917 (Fla, 4t" Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (internal citation omitted). In fact, this Court is very familiar with this cause of action, as Edwards has correctly stated this cause in his counterclaim against Epstein. Edwards is entitled to summary judgment because Epstein cannot prove these elements. The first element of an abuse of process claim is that a defendant made "an illegal, improper, or perverted use of process." On the surface, Epstein's Complaint appears to contain several allegations of such improper process. On examination, however, each of these allegations amounts to nothing other than a claim that Epstein was unhappy with some discovery proceeding, motion or argument made by Edwards. This is not the stuff of an abuse of process claim, particularly where Epstein fails to allege that he was required to do something as the result of Edwards' pursuit of the claims against him, See Marty v. Gresh, 501 So.2d 87, 90 (Fla. 15* Dist. Ct. App. 1987) (affirming summary judgment on an abuse of process claim where "appellant's lawsuit caused appellee to do nothing against her will"). 12 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013381