DARIO CARNEVALE, ET AL.,
v.
DOMINGO J. DELGADO, ET AL.,
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 denied a petition for writs of prohibition seeking to disqualify a trial judge. The court held that a party cannot seek a second disqualification of a successor judge without demonstrating actual bias, and that mere disagreement with a ruling is insufficient grounds for disqualification.
The appellate court held that a party cannot seek a second disqualification of a successor judge unless actual bias or prejudice is demonstrated. Mere disagreement with a ruling or procedural decision is not a legally sufficient ground for disqualification.
[1] A party may not seek a second disqualification of a successor judge unless the party demonstrates actual bias or prejudice.
[2] An order denying the disqualification of a successor judge is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A party may not seek a second disqualification of a successor judge except in such instance where the party demonstrates actual bias or prejudice.”
Establishes the heightened standard for a second disqualification motion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Carnevales sought to disqualify the trial judge due to alleged bias stemming from social media posts and the judge's allowance of a third-party in…
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 Motion To Disqualify Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
BOKOR, J.
Dario and Flavia Carnevale petition for writs of prohibition, seeking to reverse the denial of their motions to disqualify the trial judge from presiding over the three underlying cases. The Carnevales argue that the trial judge exhibited bias due to certain social media postings evincing a friendly relationship with a proposed third-party intervenor, Michael Feldman, Esq., and his counsel, as well as by allowing Mr. Feldman to participate in hearings without having been formally added as a party.
Preliminarily, we note the Carnevales already successfully moved to disqualify a previous trial judge on this same basis earlier in the litigation. A party may not seek a second disqualification of a successor judge except in such instance where the party demonstrates actual bias or prejudice. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(i) (“If a judge has been previously disqualified on motion for alleged prejudice or partiality under subdivision (e), a successor judge cannot be disqualified based on a successive motion by the same party unless the successor judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in the case.”). We review such a determination under an abuse of discretion standard. See Delgado v. Miller, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D405 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 22, 2023) (“[A]n order denying the disqualification of a successor judge is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Prohibition does not lie unless the record clearly refutes the successor judge’s decision to deny
the motion.”) (citations and quotations omitted). The record reveals the trial court made the best of a messy situation and attempted to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to all impacted parties. To the extent the Carnevales—or any other party—objected to the procedure employed by the court, the remedy does not lie in seeking to recuse or disqualify the trial judge. See, e.g., Bodden v. State, 314 So. 3d 458, 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“To prevail on a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to bar a trial judge from presiding over a case requires more than mere disagreement with a ruling on a given motion. This is because an adverse ruling is not a legally sufficient ground to disqualify the trial judge.”).
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bodden v. State, 314 So. 3d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Dario Carnevale v. Rogenia Trading, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)