DILIA PALMA
v.
ALFREDO RIVERA ALAMILLA
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to disqualify opposing counsel when the motion lacks sufficient grounds for this drastic remedy.
[1] Disqualification of a party's lawyer in a civil case is a drastic remedy that must be employed only in limited circumstances, and orders on motions to disqualify counsel…
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“disqualification of a party's lawyer in a civil case is a drastic remedy, which must be employed only in limited circumstances.”
Standard of review for orders on motions to disqualify counsel, citing Cordero v. Cordero, 368 So. 3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Palma filed a motion to disqualify Rivera Alamilla's trial counsel in a civil case. The trial court denied the motion on May 21, 2025.…
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 Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 3, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1181 Lower Tribunal No. 23-22020-CA-01 ________________
Dilia Palma, Petitioner,
vs.
Alfredo Rivera Alamilla, Respondent.
On Petition of Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge.
J.G Remus Consulting Law Firm, P.L.L.C., and Jeremy George Remus (Jacksonville), for petitioner.
Nicklaus & Associates, P.A., and Edward R. Nicklaus and Mark A. Stuart; Campbell Conroy & O’Neil, and P. Brandon Perkins (Fort Lauderdale), for respondent.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2 We treat petitioner Dilia Palma’s petition for writ of certiorari as an interlocutory appeal1 of the trial court’s May 21, 2025 nonfinal order that denied Palma’s motion to disqualify respondent Alfredo Rivera Alamilla’s trial counsel.2 We affirm the challenged order because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Palma’s disqualification motion. See Cordero v. Cordero, 368 So. 3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“The Court’s standard of review for orders entered on motions to disqualify counsel is that of an abuse of discretion. We note, however, that disqualification of a party's lawyer in a civil case is a drastic remedy, which must be employed only in limited circumstances.” (citation modified)). Petition treated as interlocutory appeal and challenged order affirmed.