SAUL CIMBLER
v.
REBECCA GREEMBERG
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.
In this trust dispute, the petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to disqualify the trial judge for refusing to enter a default judgment against respondents who failed to comply with court orders. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that adverse rulings alone do not warrant judicial disqualification.
The court held that the allegations presented—namely, the judge's refusal to enter a default judgment—are insufficient to establish entitlement to prohibition. Disqualification motions were never intended to allow a discontented litigant to remove a judge based solely on adverse rulings.
[1] A motion for disqualification is insufficient to establish entitlement to prohibition when the sole basis for the motion consists of adverse rulings made by the trial cou…
[2] Disqualification motions are not intended to allow a litigant to remove a judge solely because of unfavorable judicial decisions.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“disqualification motions were never intended "to enable a discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings made,"”
Establishes the fundamental principle that adverse rulings alone cannot justify judicial disqualification or prohibition
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Saul Cimbler filed a trust dispute case against Rebecca Greemberg and others. The trial court issued an order requiring respondents to resp…
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 Adverse Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed March 12, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D25-0137 Lower Tribunal No. 23-211-CA-01 ________________
Saul Cimbler,
Petitioner,
vs.
Rebecca Greemberg, et al., Respondents.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction—Prohibition. Saul Cimbler, in proper person. Rebecca Greemberg, in proper person. Julia Peron, in proper person. Before EMAS, SCALES, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.
In this trust dispute, petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition preventing the assigned trial judge from further presiding over his case. The basis for the motion for disqualification filed below is that the trial court refused to enter a default against respondents after they failed to comply with a court order requiring them to respond to the operative complaint and discovery and retain counsel for any actions undertaken in their capacity as co-trustees.
Reiterating the well-entrenched principle that disqualification motions were never intended “to enable a discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings made,” we conclude that the allegations at issue here, without more, are insufficient to establish entitlement to prohibition. Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 31 (1921); see Delgado v. Miller, 358 So. 3d 801, 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Hodges v. State, 327 So. 3d 923, 923–24 (Fla 3d DCA 2021); Quintas Vazquez v. Smith, 318 So. 3d 579, 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). Accordingly, we deny the petition.
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Cimbler v. Greemberg, 327 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…ficient to establish entitlement to prohibition. Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 31 (1921); see Delgado v. Miller, 358 So. 3d 801, 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Hodges v. State, 327 So. 3d 923, 923–24 (Fla 3d DCA 2021); Quintas Vazquez v. Smith, 318 So. 3d 579, 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). Accordingly, we deny the petition. Petition denied.…1 / 3
-
Alcazar v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
Viera v. Vivienne Lemus Viera (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…be well-founded and contain facts germane to the judge's undue bias, prejudice, or sympathy. The fact that a judge has previously made adverse rulings is not an adequate ground for recusal”) (internal citations omitted); Quintas Vazquez v. Smith, 318 So. 3d 579, 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (reaffirming the “well-settled principle that the laws governing judicial disqualification were never intended ‘to enable a discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings made’, but instead, serve ‘to pr…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1921)
- Cimbler v. Greemberg, 327 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)