Amsalem v. Amsalem

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amsalem v. Amsalem

201 So. 3d 71, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12957

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 2015

Docket3D15-1416

StatusPublished

This text of 201 So. 3d 71 (Amsalem v. Amsalem) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amsalem v. Amsalem, 201 So. 3d 71, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12957 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Frank Amsalem seeks a writ from this Court prohibiting the trial court judge from presiding over any further proceedings in this case. Specifically, Petitioner challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to disqualify the trial court judge.

We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for disqualification to determine whether the allegations appearing in the *72 motion reflect that a reasonably prudent person would have a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332, 1334-35 (Fla.1990). We do not review the truth or veracity of the motion’s allegations; for the purposes of our review, we accept those allegations as true. Zuchel v. State, 824 So.2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

The allegations of Petitioner’s motion, which the trial court must accept as true, reflect that a reasonably prudent person would have a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.

We grant the writ of prohibition. We withhold formal issuance of the writ, confident that the trial judge will promptly issue an order of disqualification. We remand this cause for reassignment to a successor judge and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1

We deny, as moot, Petitioner’s motion to expedite.

1

. Given the settlement agreement reached between Petitioner and Respondent concluding the parties’ dispute, we urge tire successor judge to determine expediently whether to end this twelve-year old case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Frank Amsalem seeks a writ from this Court prohibiting the trial court judge from presiding over any further proceedings in this case. Specifically, Petitioner challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to disqualify the trial court judge.

We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for disqualification to determine whether the allegations appearing in the *72 motion reflect that a reasonably prudent person would have a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332, 1334-35 (Fla.1990). We do not review the truth or veracity of the motion’s allegations; for the purposes of our review, we accept those allegations as true. Zuchel v. State, 824 So.2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

The allegations of Petitioner’s motion, which the trial court must accept as true, reflect that a reasonably prudent person would have a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.

We grant the writ of prohibition. We withhold formal issuance of the writ, confident that the trial judge will promptly issue an order of disqualification. We remand this cause for reassignment to a successor judge and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1

We deny, as moot, Petitioner’s motion to expedite.

1

. Given the settlement agreement reached between Petitioner and Respondent concluding the parties’ dispute, we urge tire successor judge to determine expediently whether to end this twelve-year old case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 So. 3d 71, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amsalem-v-amsalem-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack