MENADA, INC., etc. v. GABRIELA AREVALO, etc., 341 So.3d 1189

Respondent sued petitioner in December 2019 for wrongful death; the case was assigned to a civil-division judge in Section CA-08 of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit.
On January 15, 2021 the presiding judge was rotated to the Family Division and a successor judge began handling the case.
In March 2021 the prior-presiding judge’s judicial assistant contacted counsel to schedule a hearing on petitioner’s motion for clarification; petitioner objected because the successor judge had assumed the case.
The judicial assistant told counsel the parties had asked the prior judge to reassert jurisdiction; petitioner then filed a disqualification motion alleging improper ex parte communication and lack of notice.
The prior-presiding judge denied that first disqualification motion and heard the clarification motion the same day; the court of appeals treated petitioner’s petition as certiorari, found the alleged ex parte contacts went beyond administrative scheduling and quashed the denial.
A second disqualification motion (alleging the judge commented on the merits of the first motion) was denied after the appellate court had issued an order to show cause that stayed proceedings; the appellate court held that denial entered during the stay was a nullity and quashed it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judicial assistant’s contact and the prior judge’s reassertion amounted to improper ex parte communication requiring disqualification	Contact was merely administrative scheduling and within the administrative exception to the ex parte prohibition	Contact went beyond scheduling and concerned the prior judge’s retention of the case after rotation without parties’ or administrative approval	The contacts, as alleged, transcended administrative scheduling; appearance of bias warranted disqualification and the denial was quashed
Whether judicial retention of the case after rotation was proper without Chief Judge/Administrative Judge approval	Retention was permissible as a procedural matter	No record of required approval under Eleventh Judicial Circuit AO 08-07; none of the AO exceptions applied	Because no authorization appears in the record, the retention-related communications supported an objectively reasonable fear of unfairness; disqualification appropriate
Whether the trial court’s denial of the second disqualification motion was valid after the appellate court’s stay	Denial was proper on the merits	Appellate order to show cause stayed proceedings; any trial-court order entered during the stay was entered without jurisdiction	Denial entered while the stay was in effect was a nullity; it was quashed

L. Offs. of Herssein & Herssein, P.A. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 271 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 2018) (standard of review and legal sufficiency test for disqualification motions)
MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990) (appearance-of-bias formulation for disqualification)
Rose v. State, 601 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1992) (administrative-exception to ex parte prohibition and caution about ex parte contacts)
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Alonso, 268 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (impartiality of judge must be beyond question in ex parte cases)
Rodgers v. State, 948 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2006) (objective-reasonable-fear standard for disqualification)
Dragomirecky v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 891 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (orders entered without jurisdiction are nullities)