YANPING MING A/K/A HELEN MING
v.
NS FOA, LLC AND CONGWEI XU
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.
Yanping Ming petitioned for a writ of prohibition after a circuit judge denied her motion to disqualify the judge. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the petition, finding that the facts alleged in Ming's motion—regarding the judge's substantial professional relationship with opposing counsel and counsel's recent representation of the judge in high-stakes litigation—were legally sufficient to create a well-founded fear of bias in a reasonably prudent person.
The court granted the petition for writ of prohibition and found the motion to disqualify was legally sufficient. Assuming the facts pled in the verified motion are true, the allegations of the judge's substantial professional relationship with opposing counsel and counsel's recent representation of the judge created a sufficient basis for disqualification. The judge's orders entered during the stay of proceedings were quashed as nullities.
[1] When reviewing a motion to disqualify a judge de novo, the appellate court assumes the facts alleged in the verified motion are true and determines only whether those fac…
[2] Orders entered by a judge after an appellate court enters a stay of proceedings are nullities and must be quashed, except ministerial orders implementing previously annou…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 motion to disqualify is legally sufficient 'if it alleges facts that would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.'”
The court's statement of the legal standard for evaluating motions to disqualify.
Ming filed a verified motion to disqualify the presiding judge, alleging that the judge had a very substantial and extended professional and business …
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 Ministerial Task cases and more on FLexlaw
KUNTZ, J.
Yanping Ming petitioned for a writ of prohibition after the presiding circuit judge denied her motion to disqualify the judge. Assuming the facts pled in the verified motion to disqualify are true, as we must, we grant the petition.
In her verified motion to disqualify the judge, Ming alleged the judge has a “very substantial and extended professional and business relationship with” the respondent NS FOA, LLC’s co-counsel. Ming also alleged co-counsel “recently served as an attorney representing the interests of [the judge], her husband and her son (or step-son) . . . in a high profile litigation with very high stakes.” The court denied the motion without comment.
We review the legal sufficiency of the motion to disqualify de novo. City of Hollywood v. Witt, 868 So. 2d 1214, 1216-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). A motion to disqualify is legally sufficient “if it alleges facts that would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Id. at 1217 (citing MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990); Rogers v. State, 630 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla. 1993)). When the motion alleges facts sufficient to create such a fear, prohibition is the appropriate remedy. J & J Towing, Inc. v. Stokes, 789 So. 2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Here, the respondents strongly object to the facts alleged in the motion to disqualify. But, in this case, we are not tasked with adjudicating the truthfulness of the facts in the motion; we are tasked only with determining whether those facts, if true, would create a fear in the mind of a reasonably prudent person of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. The facts alleged in Ming’s motion were sufficient, and disqualification was appropriate. See, e.g., J & J Towing, 789 So. 2d at 1198. We grant the petition and quash the court’s order. Finally, the judge entered two orders after we entered an order staying proceedings in the circuit court. Generally, a disqualified judge can perform the ministerial task of entering an order already orally announced. Ross v. Ross, 77 So. 3d 238, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citations omitted). But it is unclear if that is what occurred here. After we stayed further proceedings, the court was not permitted to take any action. See Plavnicky v. Deluicia, 954 So. 2d 1178, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Leslie v. Leslie, 840 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)) (holding that orders entered during a stay are a nullity). Therefore, the two orders entered during the stay are quashed, and the successor judge shall consider the issues de novo.
Petition granted; orders quashed. WARNER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Honorable Mary Ann MacKENZIE v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990)
- Rogers v. State, 630 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1993)
- City OF Hollywood v. Witt, 868 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Leslie v. Leslie, 840 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- J & J Towing, Inc. v. Stokes, 789 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Plavnicky v. Deluicia, 954 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Ross v. Ross, 77 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)