Court Opinion

ID: 9957054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 16:04:14.046141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:05.332606
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed April 3, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D23-0858
                       Lower Tribunal No. 17-18681
                          ________________

                           Michelle Pimienta,
                                 Petitioner,

                                     vs.

                     David Abraham Rosenfeld,
                                Respondent.

     A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.

     Michelle Pimienta, in proper person.

     Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for
respondent.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.

     Michelle Pimienta petitions this court for a writ of prohibition following
the trial court’s denial of her motion for disqualification. We conclude the

motion to disqualify was legally sufficient, solely upon the sworn allegation

that the trial court refused to allow the presence of a court reporter and

insisted on hearing a motion “off the record,” and grant the petition.

      In considering an initial motion to disqualify, a trial court “may

determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the

truth of the facts alleged.” Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(h).1 Thus,

the facts alleged in the underlying motion to disqualify the trial judge must be

accepted as true. See Wall v. State, 238 So.3d 127, 143 (Fla. 2018). “Once

a basis for disqualification has been established, prohibition is both an

      1
          In contrast to the rules governing an initial motion for disqualification,
a successor judge ruling on a successive motion for disqualification “may
rule on the truth of the facts alleged in support of the motion.” Fla. R. Gen.
Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(i); see also § 38.10, Fla. Stat. (2023). While we
note the filing of multiple prior motions for disqualification in this case, the
record does not reflect that any predecessor judge has been previously
disqualified. As such, the initial motion standard of rule 2.330(h) applied to
the determination of the motion on review. See Madura v. Turosienski, 901
So. 2d 396, 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (establishing that rule on successive
motions applies only to successor judges and not to successive motions to
disqualify same judge or to motion to disqualify successor judge made after
initial judge recused himself or herself); J & J Indus., Inc. v. Carpet Showcase
of Tampa Bay, Inc., 723 So. 2d 281, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (finding trial
judge who was “not a successor judge for purposes” of applicable rule was
forbidden from passing on truthfulness of facts alleged in successive motion
to disqualify).
     By ruling that relief is warranted herein, we do not pass upon or
consider whether the allegations in the motion are true.

                                         2
appropriate and necessary remedy.” Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442

(Fla. 1978).

      Petition granted.

                                 3