BRENDA SERRANO v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 13, 2023
• Docket: 2023-0008
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 13, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0008 Lower Tribunal No. 21-25124 ________________

Brenda Serrano, Appellant,

vs.

Jeffrey Epstein, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge.

Andrew M. Kassier, P.A., and Andrew M. Kassier, for appellant.

Law Offices of Kurt R. Klaus, Jr., and Kurt R. Klaus, Jr., for appellee.

Before SCALES, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below, Brenda Serrano, individually and on behalf of her minor son (“Serrano”), appeals from the final summary judgment entered in

favor of defendant Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”). We affirm, in part, and

reverse, in part.

Serrano filed a complaint against several defendants, including

Epstein and Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase Bank”). Epstein moved for

summary judgment as to the counts alleged by Serrano against him based

on his affirmative defenses. Chase Bank did not move for summary

judgment. At the conclusion of the hearing on Epstein’s motion for

summary judgment, at which Chase Bank was not present, the trial court

granted Epstein’s motion for summary judgment, and stated that it was

entering a final summary judgment as to all counts alleged by Serrano,

which would include the counts Serrano alleged against nonmovant Chase

Bank. Thereafter, the trial court entered the final summary judgment under

review.

Without further discussion, we affirm the portion of the final summary

judgment entered as to the claims asserted by Serrano against Epstein, as

the issues raised by Serrano as to those claims lack merit. However, we

reverse the entry of final summary judgment relating to Serrano’s claims

alleged against defendant Chase Bank because Chase Bank did not move

for summary judgment, and Serrano was not provided with notice and with

2 an opportunity to respond and prepare for the hearing as to her claims

asserted against Chase Bank. See Ness Racquet Club, LLC, v. Ocean

Four 2108, LLC, 88 So. 3d 200, 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“Where a party

has not filed a summary judgment motion or where no notice or opportunity

to be heard has been given to the opposing side to present opposing

affidavits, a trial court may not sua sponte grant summary judgment in favor

of the non-movant.”); Hotel 71 Mezz Lender, LLC v. Tutt, 66 So. 3d 1051,

1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (reversing summary judgment in favor of

nonmoving party where opposing party was not given an opportunity to

respond and prepare for hearing). Accordingly, we affirm, in part, and

reverse, in part, the final summary judgment entered against Serrano.

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part.