PIERRE-JEAN NGUYEN, PETITIONER,
v.
NATALIA NGUYEN, RESPONDENT
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 court held that the facts alleged in the motion for disqualification would create a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.
[1] The standard of review for a trial court's determination on a motion to disqualify a judge is de novo.
[2] A judge must be disqualified when the facts alleged in a motion, taken as true, would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair an…
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 intelligencePetitioner sought disqualification of the trial judge. The trial court denied the motion as legally insufficient. The appellate court reviewed the all…
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 Legal Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner Pierre-Jean Nguyen seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition following an order denying, as legally insufficient, an initial motion for disqualification of the trial judge. The standard of review of a trial court’s determination on a motion to disqualify is de novo. MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 1990); Wade v. Wade, 123 So.3d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration provide for the disqualification of a judge when “the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(d)(1). The legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify depends on “whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083, 1087 (Fla. 1983); State v. Borrego, 105 So.3d 616, 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The allegations of fact that are contained in the motion must be taken as true, Masten v. State, 159 So.3d 996, 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), and “the question of disqualification focuses not on what the judge intended, but rather how the message is received and the basis of the feeling.” Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. 2000 Island Blvd. Condo. Ass’n, 153 So.3d 384, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (citing Livingston, 441 So.2d at 1086).
Having reviewed the petition and the transcript of the hearing referred to therein, we conclude that the facts • alleged in the motion to disqualify, which rtiust be taken as true, “would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Rodriguez v. State, 919 So.2d 1252, 1274 (Fla. 2005).
We grant the writ of prohibition. We withhold formal issuance of the writ, confident that the trial judge will promptly issue an order of disqualification. We remand this cause for reassignment to a *408successor judge and .for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cisneros v. Guinand, 298 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…must be taken as true, Masten v. State, 159 So. 3d 996, 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), and ‘the question of disqualification focuses not on what the judge intended, but rather how the message is received and the basis of the feeling.’” Nguyen v. Nguyen, 229 So. 3d 407, 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quoting Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. 2000 Island Blvd. Condo. Ass’n, 153 So. 3d 384, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)). “[T]hat the findings implicate petitioner[’s] counsel …, rather than petitione[r] individually, is a distinctio…
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Heydi Velez (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…2018) (quoting Molina v. Perez, 187 So. 3d 909, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)). Our focus is “not on what the judge intended, but rather how the message is received and the basis of the feeling.” Cisneros, 314 So. 3d at 683 (quoting Nguyen v. Nguyen, 229 So. 3d 407, 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)); see also In re Guardianship of O.A.M., 124 So. 3d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“In reviewing the allegations in a motion for disqualification, ‘facts must be taken as true and must be viewed from the movant’s perspecti…
Authorities Cited
- Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1983)
- Honorable Mary Ann MacKENZIE v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990)
- Rodriguez v. State, 919 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2005)
- Great Am. Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. 2000 Island Boulevard Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 153 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Masten v. State, 159 So. 3d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- S.L. Wade v. D.T. Wade, 123 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- State v. Radames Borrego, 105 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)