Court Opinion

ID: 9414647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 15:04:38.615916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:55.282655
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed August 2, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D23-0690
                       Lower Tribunal No. 20-25266
                          ________________

                          Seth Frohlich, et al.,
                                 Petitioners,

                                     vs.

           National Concrete Preservation, Inc., et al.,
                               Respondents.

     A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.

     Hamilton, Miller, & Birthisel, LLP, and William H. Edwards, and Michael
J. Dono, for petitioners.

     Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine, P.L., Steve I. Silverman,
Lauren S. Fallick, and Becky N. Saka, for respondents Mirador 1000
Condominium Association, Inc., and Mirador 1200 Condominium
Association, Inc.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to disqualify the assigned trial

judge from further presiding over their dispute involving respondents.

Relying upon established precedent, we conclude the comments outlined in

the disqualification motion filed below were sufficient to support a well-

founded fear of bias. See Hollywood Park Apartments W., LLC v. City of

Hollywood, 353 So. 3d 662, 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“Most significantly,

however, the trial judge threatened the party with criminal investigation

several times. That alone would cause a party to fear that the trial judge was

biased against it, and the party could not receive a fair trial.”); Copiers Int’l

Corp. v. All Am. Bus. Sys., Inc., 825 So. 2d 438, 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)

(“The judge’s remarks as to why plaintiff had not referred [petitioner] to the

state attorney’s office for criminal prosecution based on the complaint’s

allegations, and the judge’s direction that plaintiff conduct discovery to

determine such criminal liability, provide a well-founded fear that [petitioner]

would not be afforded a fair trial.”); see also In re Est. of Elliott, 993 P.2d 474,

482 (Colo. 2000) (directing disqualification after judge stated to party “you

are going to be in an awful lot of trouble with the District Attorney’s office if

we don’t get this matter straightened up”). Accordingly, we grant the petition.

We withhold formal issuance of the writ, as we are confident the trial judge

will promptly issue an order of disqualification.

                                         2
Petition granted. Writ withheld.

                                   3