ADA A. GONZALEZ
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's order and warned the appellant that her repeated, frivolous filings against a judge were wasting judicial resources. The court ordered the appellant to show cause why she should not be sanctioned, potentially including a ban on future filings related to her claims against the judge.
The court affirmed the order under review and found the appeal to be frivolous. The court ordered the appellant to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, including a potential bar on future pro se filings related to her claims against Judge Rudisill.
[1] A court may impose sanctions, including a bar against further pro se filings, on a party who engages in a pattern of repetitious and frivolous filings attacking the same…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“We affirm the order under review, and write only because we find that this appeal, like numerous others Appellant has filed, is completely frivolous and a waste of judicial resources.”
Establishes the court's decision to affirm and its reason for writing an opinion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant has a history of filing numerous frivolous lawsuits against a specific Seminole County circuit judge who presided over a domestic relati…
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 Judicial Resources cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order under review, and write only because we find that this appeal, like numerous others Appellant has filed, is completely frivolous and a waste of judicial resources. This Court’s records reflect that, in addition to this case, Appellant has filed at least six prior cases in this Court related to her ongoing attacks against Judge Michael J. Rudisill, a Seminole County circuit judge who presided over a domestic relations case against Appellant’s former spouse. That underlying dispute was Eighteenth Circuit Case No. 2000-DR-1898-02. A related case, a foreclosure action against Appellant’s property in which the same judge is assigned,
is Eighteenth Circuit Case No. 2016-CA-1283. This Court’s cases in which Appellant continued or continues to pursue this frivolous issue against Judge Rudisill include Case Nos. 17-1281, 18-186, 18-1881, 19-1472, 19-3830, 20-3050, and 21-1399. None of the disposed cases have had any merit, and neither does this one.
These cases reveal a history of repetitious and frivolous filings, which consume scarce judicial resources needed for meritorious cases. Accordingly, pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), Appellant shall file a response within 20 days to show why sanctions should not be imposed on her, including a complete bar against any further pro se filings in this Court related to her claims against Judge Rudisill. Appellant is advised that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions without further opportunity to be heard. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410.
AFFIRMED and RESPONSE ORDERED.
RAY, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. _____________________________