INPHYNET CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC., AND TEAM HEALTH, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
DAVID M. SORIA, M.D., EMERGENCY SPECIALISTS OF WELLINGTON, L.L.C., AND MEDICAL EDGE HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., 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.
Petitioners sought writs of prohibition to disqualify a trial judge based on alleged bias toward plaintiff's counsel. The Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the writs, holding that petitioners failed to comply with the ten-day filing requirement under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(e) and that the incidents, even cumulatively, did not establish an objectively reasonable basis for fearing bias.
The court denied the writ of prohibition in the first case because petitioners failed to timely file their motion—they based the ten-day deadline on subjective conviction of bias rather than an objectively verifiable triggering event, and the incidents, occurring over a long period and lacking objective evidence of bias, did not warrant disqualification. The court vacated the trial judge's order in the second case and dismissed that petition as premature because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion while proceedings were stayed by the appellate court's order to show cause.
[1] A motion to disqualify a judge must be filed within ten days of the discovery of facts constituting the grounds for the motion.
[2] A judge's alleged bias cannot be established by incidents occurring over a long period of time, even when considered cumulatively, if they do not create an objectively re…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“petitioners cobble together a series of incidents beginning in 2008, but say that they complied with the ten-day time limit of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(e), because their motions to disqualify were filed within ten days of them being "convinced" that the judge was biased. This approach is contrary to the typical situation involving a motion for recusal, which is filed within ten days of an objectively verifiable triggering event.”
Establishes the key issue: petitioners improperly based the ten-day deadline on subjective conviction rather than objectively verifiable facts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners consolidated two petitions for writs of prohibition against the same trial judge. In the first case, they alleged bias based on a series o…
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 Sua Sponte Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
These consolidated petitions for writs of prohibition involve petitioners’ efforts to disqualify the trial judge on the ground that the trial judge was biased in favor of counsel for the plaintiff. Petitioners cobble together a series of incidents beginning in 2008, but say that they complied with the ten-day time limit of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(e), because their motions to disqualify were filed within ten days of them being “convinced” that the judge was biased. This approach is contrary to the typical situation involving a motion for recusal, which is filed within ten days of an objectively verifiable triggering event. See Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.330(e) (requiring filing of a motion to disqualify not later than “10 days after the discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion”). Although the cumulative effect of events occurring within a short span of time have been found sufficient to warrant disqualification, see Chillingworth v. State, 846 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the incidents here occurred over a long period of time and, even cumulatively, do not create an objectively reasonable basis to fear bias. The timely raised issues in this case concern the trial judge’s sua sponte entry of a summary judgment and the fact that the judge furnished an order to one party by fax and to the other party by standard mail. Petitioners’ claim is largely based on innuendo and exaggeration of known facts.1 We deny the writ of prohibition in case number 4D09-5170.
*301Case Number 4D10-644 involves a motion to disqualify based on the trial judge’s recusal in an unrelated matter, which is the subject of our Case Number 4D10-1057. The trial judge denied the motion on January 28, 2010. However, our issuance of an order to show cause in case number 4D09-5170, involving the same underlying case, had the effect of staying proceedings in the circuit court. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.100(h). The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion while proceedings were stayed. See Plavnicky v. Deluicia, 954 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Leslie v. Leslie, 840 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We vacate the order entered during the stay and dismiss the petition in 4D10-644 as premature.
GROSS, C.J., MAY, and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stokes v. Jones (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…dings in the trial court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(h) (“In prohibition proceedings, the issuance of an order directing the respondent to show cause shall stay further proceedings in the lower tribunal.”); Inphynet Contracting Servs., Inc. v. Soria, 37 So. 3d 299, 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[O]ur issuance of an order to show cause in case number 4D09-5170, involving the same underlying case, had the effect of staying proceedings in the circuit court. The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion…
Authorities Cited
- Chillingworth v. State, 846 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Leslie v. Leslie, 840 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Plavnicky v. Deluicia, 954 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)