City of Miami v. Village of Key Biscayne
199 So. 3d 300
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- The City of Miami filed two separate petitions for writs of prohibition challenging trial-court rulings in a suit brought by the Village of Key Biscayne over the Miami International Boat Show license at Marine Stadium (lower court no. 15-2997).
- Petition 3D16-900 challenged the trial judge’s refusal to recuse based on statements the judge made during a hearing on the City’s motion to dismiss.
- Petition 3D16-1019 challenged the trial court’s denial of the City’s motion to dismiss for failure to join the National Marine Manufacturer’s Association (NMMA), which the City contended was an indispensable party because the Village sought to enjoin performance of the City–NMMA license agreement.
- The trial court denied the recusal motion and denied dismissal for failure to join NMMA; NMMA has separately moved to intervene in the underlying case.
- The appellate court consolidated the petitions, denied the recusal petition, and dismissed as premature the petition challenging the denial of the dismissal motion because NMMA’s intervention motion was pending and the issue might be mooted or subject to appeal after final action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial judge should be disqualified for comments made at a hearing | City: judge's statements created fear of not receiving a fair, impartial trial | Village: judge's remarks were permissible community awareness and insufficient for disqualification | Denied — statements, in context, did not create a well‑founded fear of bias (recusal denied) |
| Whether the trial court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction/must dismiss because NMMA was an indispensable party | City: NMMA is indispensable because the complaint seeks to enjoin performance of the City–NMMA contract; absence of NMMA divests jurisdiction | Village: (implicit) dismissal premature; NMMA has moved to intervene and can be joined or appeal if denied | Dismissed as premature — court will not grant prohibition now because NMMA’s intervention motion may moot the petition or provide an adequate later remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Forehand v. Walton Cty., 172 So. 3d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (general judicial awareness of community events does not alone require disqualification)
- English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977) (prohibition is an extraordinary remedy, used cautiously to prevent injury not remediable on appeal)
- 1800 Atlantic Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. 1800 Atlantic Developers, 569 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (where relief seeks to enjoin contract performance, both contract parties may be indispensable)
- Litvak v. Scylla Props., LLC, 946 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (order denying intervention can be appealed as a partial final judgment)
- Fresh Del Monte Produce, N.V. v. Chiquita Int'l Ltd., 664 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (declining to treat denial of dismissal for failure to join indispensable party as proper certiorari relief)