MANUEL V. FEIJOO, M.D., P.A. A/A/O HUMBERTO VELIZ
v.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
Petitioners sought writs of prohibition to disqualify a trial judge in consolidated insurance cases. The Third District Court of Appeal denied the petitions, finding that the disqualification motions were both untimely and legally insufficient.
The court denied the petitions for writ of prohibition, holding that the disqualification motions were both untimely and legally insufficient. A motion to disqualify is legally sufficient only when alleged facts would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial, and such motions must be filed within 20 days after discovery of the facts constituting grounds for disqualification.
[1] A petition for writ of prohibition is the appropriate vehicle to test the validity of the denial of a motion for disqualification.
[2] In an original proceeding for prohibition, courts consider only whether a motion for disqualification was legally sufficient and whether the order denying the motion was…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In an original proceeding for prohibition, we do not resolve disputed issues of fact; we consider only whether the motion for disqualification (filed with the trial court) was legally sufficient and whether the order denying the motion was correct.”
Establishes the limited scope of review in prohibition proceedings challenging disqualification denials
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMultiple entities and individuals (Dade Medics and Rehab Centers, Manuel V. Feijoo, M.D., P.A. on behalf of various patients, and others) filed consol…
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 Legal Sufficiency Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Nos. 3D25-0671, 3D25-0777, 3D25-0778, 3D25-0782 Lower Tribunal Nos. 23-2802-CC-25, 20-8282-SP-25, 21-5662-SP-25, 20- 8641-SP-25.
Manuel V. Feijoo, M.D., P.A., etc., et al., Petitioners,
vs.
Progressive American Insurance Company, et al., Respondents.
Cases of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.
George A. David, P.A., and George A. David, for petitioners.
Banker Lopez Gassler, P.A., and DeeAnn J. McLemore (St. Petersburg), for respondents.
Before LOGUE, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
GORDO, J.
In these consolidated cases, Petitioners Dade Medics and Rehab Centers a/a/o Carlos Rodriguez, Manuel V. Feijoo, M.D., P.A. a/a/o Junior Milian Leiva, Manuel V. Feijoo, M.D., P.A. a/a/o Laura Perez and Manuel V. Feijoo, M.D., P.A. a/a/o Humberto Veliz filed petitions seeking writs of prohibition to preclude the trial court from continuing to preside over the proceedings below. We have jurisdiction.¹ Fla. R. App. P. 9.100; 9.030(b)(3). We deny the petitions as the Petitioners' disqualification motions were both untimely and legally insufficient. See Melvin v. Progressive Select Ins. Co., 346 So. 3d 1195, 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“In an original proceeding for prohibition, we do not resolve disputed issues of fact; we consider only whether the motion for disqualification (filed with the trial court) was legally sufficient and whether the order denying the motion was correct."); Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes-Fauli, 903 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“Allegations in a motion to recuse or disqualify a trial judge are reviewed under a de novo standard as to whether the motion is legally sufficient as a matter of law. A motion to recuse or disqualify a trial judge is legally sufficient when the alleged facts would create in a reasonably prudent
person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.”); Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(g) (“A motion to disqualify shall be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 20 days after discovery by the party or party's counsel, whichever is earlier, of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion.").
Petitions denied.
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Valdes-Fauli v. Gonzalo F. Valdes-Fauli, 903 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)