291 So.3d 144
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2020Background
- Yanping Ming filed a verified motion to disqualify the presiding circuit judge in an Indian River County case, alleging the judge had a "very substantial and extended professional and business relationship" with respondents' co‑counsel.
- Ming further alleged that that co‑counsel recently represented the judge, her husband, and her son (or stepson) in a high‑profile, high‑stakes litigation.
- The circuit judge denied the motion to disqualify without comment; Ming petitioned the Fourth District for a writ of prohibition.
- The Fourth District reviews the legal sufficiency of disqualification motions de novo and asks whether the alleged facts, if true, would create in a reasonably prudent person a well‑founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.
- The court held that, assuming the facts in Ming’s verified motion are true, the allegations were legally sufficient and disqualification was required, so it granted the petition and quashed the denial.
- After the district court issued a stay, the circuit judge entered two orders; the district court quashed those orders as entered during the stay and directed the successor judge to consider the matters de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of the verified motion to disqualify | Ming alleged a substantial, ongoing relationship between the judge and respondents' co‑counsel, plus recent representation of the judge and family — creating fear of bias | Respondents contend the factual allegations are untrue and insufficient | Assuming the verified facts are true, they are legally sufficient to create a reasonable fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial; disqualification required; petition granted and order quashed |
| Appropriateness of writ of prohibition as remedy | Prohibition is proper once a motion alleges facts that would create a reasonable fear of bias | Respondents argue facts are false, so prohibition is inappropriate | Writ of prohibition is the correct remedy where a legally sufficient verified motion to disqualify was denied |
| Validity of orders entered after appellate stay | Orders entered after the stay are void because the court lacked authority to act | Circuit judge may be able to enter ministerial orders previously announced | Because it was unclear whether the orders were merely ministerial and they were entered after the stay, the orders are quashed; successor judge will consider issues de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Hollywood v. Witt, 868 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (standard for legal sufficiency of motion to disqualify; de novo review)
- MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990) (establishes disqualification standard)
- Rogers v. State, 630 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1993) (disqualification principles)
- J & J Towing, Inc. v. Stokes, 789 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (writ of prohibition appropriate when motion to disqualify is legally sufficient)
- Ross v. Ross, 77 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (disqualified judge may perform previously announced ministerial acts)
- Plavnicky v. Deluicia, 954 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (orders entered during an appellate stay are null)
- Leslie v. Leslie, 840 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (stay prevents the court from taking action; orders during stay invalid)