Epstein’s Negligence Claim Against Edwards Deemed Legally Insufficient

b. Epstein’s Allegations of Negligence by Edwards are Unfounded and Not Actionable in Any Event. In his Second Amended Complaint Epstein recognizes at least the possibility that Edwards was not involved in any Rothstein Ponzi scheme. Therefore, seemingly as a fallback, Epstein alleges without explanation that Edwards “should have known” about the existence of this concealed Ponzi scheme. Among other problems, this fallback negligence position suffers the fatal flaw that it does not link at all to the intentional tort of abuse of process alleged in the complaint. Epstein’s negligence claim is also deficient because it simply fails to satisfy the requirements for a negligence cause of action: “Four elements are necessary to sustain a negligence claim: 1. A duty, or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the [defendant] to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks, 2. A failure on the [defendant’s] part to conform to the standard required: a breach of the duty ....3. A reasonably close causal connection between he conduct and the resulting injury. This is what is commonly known as ‘legal cause,’ or ‘proximate cause,’ and which includes the notion of cause in fact. 4. Actual loss or damage. Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, —-— So.2d__, 2010 WL 2400384 at *9 (Fla. 2010). Epstein does not allege a particular duty on the part of Edwards that has been breached. Nor does Epstein explain how any breach of the duty might have proximately caused him actual damages. Summary judgment is therefore appropriate for these reasons as well. Finally, for the sake of completeness, it is worth noting briefly that no reasonable jury could find Edwards to have been negligent in failing to anticipate that a managing partner at his law firm would be involved in an unprecedented Ponzi scheme. Scott Rothstein deceived not HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013377