HENRY MCCONE, PETITIONER,
v.
PITNEY BOWES, INC. AND NOVITEX ENTERPRISE, ETC., RESPONDENTS
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 court held that the motion to disqualify was not automatically granted because the petitioner failed to properly serve the motion on the trial judge according to the rules.
Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to quash an order denying his motion to disqualify the trial judge. He argued the motion was automatically gra…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.080 cases and more on FLexlaw
Henry McCone seeks a -writ of prohibition to quash an order denying his motion to disqualify the trial judge below. McCone’s petition does not address the merits of his motion to disqualify. Instead, he argues that the motion was deemed granted when the trial judge failed to rule on it within thirty days of service. McCone filed his motion on June 3, 2015. The motion was denied on July 28,2015. In the order denying the motion, the lower court noted that the motion was not properly Served.1 We agree.1
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(c) incorporates the standards for service set out in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080. Rule 1.080 mandates that service of all documents filed in an action must conform with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration -2.516. • Rule 2.516(b)(1), in turn, requires service “by e-mail.” Certain exceptions to the email requirement are provided for under rule -2.516(b)(2)(A-E). See Leila, Corp. of St. Pete v. Ossy 144 So.3d 644, 647-48 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
McCone did not properly serve the trial judge in conformity with the rules. He did not email the judge, nor did he allege an exception to' the email requirement. He-also did not take any action to conform with the alternative means of service. See Fla. R. Civ.- P. 1.080; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330, 2.516. ' Therefore, the automatic grant provision of rule 2.330(j) was. not triggered. Accordingly, we denied the pe*906tition for writ of prohibition.2
PETITION DENIED.
LAWSON, C.J., COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Leila Corp. OF ST. Pete v. Fareed Ossi & Ossi Consulting Eng'rs, Inc., 144 So. 3d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)