SOUTHERN COATINGS, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
THE CITY OF TAMARAC, MAYOR JOE SCHRIEBER, COMMISSIONER KAREN ROBERTS, COMMISSIONER MARC SULTANOF, COMMISSIONER EDWARD PORTNER AND COMMISSIONER GERTRUDE MISHKIN, RESPONDENTS
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.
Southern Coatings, Inc. sought a writ of prohibition to bar a judge from presiding over a sanctions hearing after he had already disqualified himself from the case-in-chief. The Florida District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that a judge who disqualifies himself must proceed no further in the action and cannot retain jurisdiction over any remaining issues without party agreement.
The court held that it was improper for the trial court to retain jurisdiction to hear the sanctions issue after disqualifying himself from the case-in-chief without the parties' agreement. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(f) requires that if a disqualification motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action.
[1] A judge who has been disqualified from presiding over a case-in-chief cannot retain jurisdiction to preside over subsequent hearings in that same case, absent agreement o…
[2] Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(f) mandates that upon a legally sufficient motion for disqualification, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action”
Establishes the mandatory requirement that a disqualified judge must completely withdraw from the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJudge Leroy H. Moe granted petitioner Southern Coatings' motion for disqualification as to the case-in-chief. However, the judge retained jurisdiction…
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 Retention Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We sua sponte withdraw our opinion issued February 5, 2003 and substitute the following.
Petitioner, Southern Coatings, Inc., the plaintiff below, seeks relief barring Bro-ward County Circuit Court Judge Leroy H. Moe from continuing to preside over a hearing set on defendants’ entitlement to and award of sanctions against petitioner’s attorney. Previously Judge Moe had granted petitioner’s motion for disqualification as to the case-in-chief. We grant the petition.
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(f) provides in pertinent part that (“[i]f the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action ”) (emphasis added).
It was improper for the trial court to retain jurisdiction, without the parties’ agreement, to prospectively hold a hearing as to one issue in the case after disqualifying himself as to the balance of the case. See CH2M Hill S.E., Inc. v. Pinellas County, 598 So. 2d 85, 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that where the trial court proceeded in the case for several days prior to denying motion for disqualification presented in midst of trial, the judge’s actions exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry, it was error for him to continue in the case, and a new trial was required); Airborne Cable Television, Inc. v. Storer Cable TV of Fla., Inc., 596 So. 2d 117, 117-18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that the trial court should not have ruled on pending motion for attorney’s fees after defendant filed motion for disqualification, which was before judge had indicated how he would determine fee issue; the subsequent entry of fee order could not be deemed a ministerial act fulfilling earlier ruling); State ex rel. Cobb v. Bailey, 349 So. 2d 849, 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (holding that trial court lacked authority to conduct contempt hearing nearly a month after recusing itself).
Cf. Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So. 2d 240 (Fla.1986) (holding trial court retained authority to reduce order to writing subsequent to filing of motion for disqualification, where matters were tried and orally ruled upon prior to filing of motion); Coastal Petroleum Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 378 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (holding that trial judge who had recused himself as to issues severed and not yet tried had the authority to enter final judgment on certain issues when he specifically reserved jurisdiction to rule on those matters previously tried).
The petition for writ of prohibition is granted and the motion in question should be heard instead by the successor judge who is handling the balance of the case.
FARMER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thibideau v. The Est. OF Leslie Blane, 851 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ire proceeding. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(f) provides that if a motion for disqualification is legally sufficient, it must be granted and the judge shall “proceed no further in the action.” S. Coatings, Inc. v. City of Tamarac, 840 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(judge who granted motion for disqualification as to the case could not subsequently preside over a hearing on sanctions against counsel). We construe the rule to mean that when the motion seeks to disqualify the judge from the…
-
S. Coatings, Inc. v. The City OF Tamarac, 943 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…rtunity to be heard. We therefore reverse and remand for a properly noticed hearing on the sanctions. The protracted litigation in this case has already resulted in two published opinions from this court: Southern Coatings, Inc. v. City of Tamarac, 840 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“Southern I”) and Southern Coatings, Inc. v. City of Tamarac, 916 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“Southern II ”). Essentially, the dispute involves attempts by Southern to obtain public records from the City of Tamarac. Two prio…
Authorities Cited
- Anne Marie Fischer v. Honorable Francis X. Knuck, 497 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1986)
- Coastal Petroleum Co. v. Mobil OIL Corp., 378 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Airborne Cable Television, Inc. v. Storer Cable TV OF Fla., Inc., 596 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Glenwood Brooks Cobb, Sr. v. The Honorable W. L. Bailey, 349 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Glover v. State, 598 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- CH2M Hill Se., Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty., 598 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)