R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., ET AL.
v.
WALTER J. COXWELL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court denied a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to disqualify a trial judge. The court found the motion legally insufficient due to untimeliness and failure to provide the precise date of the party's discovery of the grounds for disqualification.
Yes, the motion to disqualify was legally insufficient. The court found that the motion failed to meet the rule's requirements for timeliness and the precise identification of the date of discovery by the party.
[1] A motion to disqualify a trial judge must be filed within 20 days after discovery of the facts constituting grounds for disqualification by the party or the party's couns…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(g) requires that such motions to disqualify be filed “within a reasonable time not to exceed 20 days after discovery by the party or party’s counsel, whichever is earlier, of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion.””
Establishes the timeliness requirement for motions to disqualify.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge months after the judge was assigned. The motion provided the date counsel discovered the g…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Engle Progeny Case cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for writ of prohibition seeking to disqualify the trial judge. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Gordon, 316 So. 3d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021).
Putting aside whether Petitioner alleged legally sufficient facts that create a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial, see Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(e); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Cuddihee, 272 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (granting the petition under similar circumstances), Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(g) requires that such motions to disqualify be filed “within a reasonable time not to exceed 20 days after discovery by the party or party’s counsel, whichever is earlier, of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion.” (Emphasis added.)
Rule 2.330(c)(2) also requires the motion to identify the “precise date” when the facts constituting the grounds for the motion were discovered by “the party or the party’s counsel, whichever is earlier.” (Emphasis added.) Here, Petitioner filed its motion months after the trial judge was assigned and supplied the “precise date” only of when Petitioner’s “undersigned counsel” became aware of the facts constituting grounds for the motion. The motion failed to give the precise date of the party-Petitioner’s knowledge, while simultaneously alleging facts detailing Petitioner’s long history of opposition in Engle cases from the now-trial judge in this Engle case. The corporate declaration in support of Petitioner’s motion likewise supplied no precise date of Petitioner’s discovery of the problem with the trial judge.
In view of the rule’s time requirement, Petitioner’s extensive Engle-litigation history with the now-trial judge, and the motion’s omission of the precise date of Petitioner’s discovery of the problem here, we agree that the motion was legally insufficient. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(c)(2) & (g).
LEWIS, ROBERTS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Coxwell, 316 So. 3d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…PER CURIAM. We deny the petition for writ of prohibition seeking to disqualify the trial judge. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Gordon, 316 So. 3d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021). Putting aside whether Petitioner alleged legally sufficient facts that create a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial, see Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(e); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Cuddi…
-
The Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Calvary Chapel Church, Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…evidence is purely speculative and, therefore, inadequate to produce an inference that outweighs all contrary or opposing inferences.” Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, 131 So. 2d 730, 733 (Fla. 1961); see also R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Nelson, 353 So. 3d 87, 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“[C]ircumstantial evidence cannot merely raise an unfounded suspicion or legally sufficient speculation that allows an intentional-tort claim to be submitted to a jury.” (quoting R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Whitmire, 260 So…
-
Nbis Constr. & Transp. Ins. Servs. v. Liebherr-America, Inc., 93 F.4th 1304 (11th Cir. 2024)…). Further, Florida courts have described cases concerning this duty to warn as “products liability action[s] based on negligence." West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80, 90 (Fla. 1976); see also, e.g., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Nelson, 353 So. 3d 87, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (discussing “Florida law addressing product liability based on negligent design and negligent failure to warn”); Emerson Elec. Co. v. Garcia, 623 So. 2d 523, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (reviewing USCA11 Case: 22-14104 Document:…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Coxwell, 316 So. 3d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. & Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Cuddihee, 272 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)