UNIVERSAL X RAYS, CORP., A/A/O PEDRO DEULOFEU
v.
INFINITY INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

Fla. 3d DCA | 2024-11-13
No. 2024-1901
2024 FL 12961 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2024)

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.

Synopsis

Universal X Rays, Corp. filed consolidated petitions for writs of prohibition challenging trial court orders denying the petitioner's motions to disqualify the judges in multiple personal injury protection (PIP) insurance cases. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial courts' refusal to disqualify, holding that adverse rulings, judicial complaints, and attorney complaints do not constitute legally sufficient grounds for judicial disqualification.


Holding

A judge's previous adverse rulings against a party do not constitute legally sufficient grounds for disqualification. Additionally, a judge's report of perceived attorney unprofessionalism to The Florida Bar, standing alone, is legally insufficient to support judicial disqualification, nor does a prior complaint against the judge with the Judicial Qualifications Commission automatically require disqualification.


Headnotes

[1] A judge's report of perceived attorney unprofessionalism to The Florida Bar, in and of itself, is legally insufficient to support that judge's disqualification.

[2] An attorney reporting perceived judicial unprofessionalism to the Judicial Qualifications Commission is, in and of itself, legally insufficient to support judicial disqua…

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“the fact that a judge has ruled adversely to the party in the past does not constitute a legally sufficient ground for a motion to disqualify”

Establishes that prior adverse rulings are not grounds for disqualification

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Universal X Rays, Corp. sought disqualification of trial court judges in sixteen consolidated PIP insurance cases involving disputes with various insu…

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.


Per_curiam
Per Curiam

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 13, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D24-1890 Lower Tribunal No. 23-4115-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Yensy Cuba, No. 3D24-1891 Lower Tribunal No. 23-12485-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Alfredo de Armas, No. 3D24-1892 Lower Tribunal No. 23-52424-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Yelenett Puig, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 3D24-1894 Lower Tribunal No. 23-4645-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Gonzalo X Del Rio, No. 3D24-1895 Lower Tribunal No. 24-95660-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Sandra Puente, No. 3D24-1896 Lower Tribunal No. 23-2449-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Yalile Cabrera, No. 3D24-1898 Lower Tribunal No. 23-510-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Eric Torres, Bristol West Insurance Company, No. 3D24-1899 Lower Tribunal No. 23-480-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Kiro Garcia, No. 3D24-1900 Lower Tribunal No. 23-12487-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Andreo O. Cambria, No. 3D24-1901 Lower Tribunal No. 23-1639-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Pedro Deulofeu, Infinity Indemnity Insurance Company,

_______________

No. 3D24-1902 Lower Tribunal No. 22-1463-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Juan Jimenez, No. 3D24-1903 Lower Tribunal No. 23-11771-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Carina Angelo, No. 3D24-1904 Lower Tribunal No. 22-10748-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Damaris Broche, No. 3D24-1905 Lower Tribunal No. 23-2444-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Alexis Cabrera, No. 3D24-1906 Lower Tribunal No. 22-22226-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Ivan Castano Figueroa,

_______________

No. 3D24-1907 Lower Tribunal No. 23-515-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Marian T. Jimenez, No. 3D24-1908 Lower Tribunal No. 22-40432-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Carlos Herrera, No. 3D24-1909 Lower Tribunal No. 23-11462-SP-05 Universal X Rays, Corp., a/a/o Yolaine Fajardo, Petitioner, Cases of Original Jurisdiction—Prohibition. Robert J. Lee, P.A., Robert J. Lee and Michael V. Tichenor, for petitioner. Law Office of Leslie M. Goodman & Associates, Liliana Garcia, Mylena O. Chin See, Amanda Duran, and Selena Villadiego; Law Office of Gabriel O. Fundora & Associates, Nicholas Cruz Encinas, IV, Branden V. McDaniel, and John G. Mollaghan (Tampa); Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, and Marcus J. Scott; Law Office of Haydee De La Rosa – Tolgyesi, Michael J. Long (West Palm Beach), and Rebeca Quintero; The Law Office of George L. Cimballa, III, and Tiffani Fox (Plantation); Law Offices of Olga Acosta Farmer, and Christine S. Robbins (Oklahoma City, OK); Law Offices of Terry M. Torres & Associates, Terry M. Torres, Stefani Hunter, Williams Mesa and Robert Phaneuf, for respondents. Before SCALES, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.

In these PIP cases, Petitioner Universal X Rays, Corp. challenges, via petitions for writ of prohibition, trial court orders denying Petitioner’s various motions to disqualify the trial court. We, sua sponte, consolidate the various cases and deny the petitions. See Thompson v. State, 759 So. 2d 650, 659 (Fla. 2000) (“[T]he fact that a judge has ruled adversely to the party in the past does not constitute a legally sufficient ground for a motion to disqualify.”); 5-H Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So. 2d 244, 248 (Fla. 1997) (“However, we today hold that a Florida judge’s mere reporting of perceived attorney unprofessionalism to The Florida Bar, in and of itself, is legally insufficient to support judicial disqualification. The same applies in the similar context of an attorney reporting perceived judicial unprofessionalism to the JQC.”); Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 3E(1) cmt. (“[I]f a lawyer or party has previously filed a complaint against the judge with the Judicial Qualifications Commission, that fact does not automatically require disqualification of the judge.”).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw