Rowe v. Duetche Bank National Trust Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rowe v. Duetche Bank National Trust Co.

49 So. 3d 1285, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 20232, 2010 WL 5306529

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 2010

DocketNo. 1D10-5660

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 So. 3d 1285 (Rowe v. Duetche Bank National Trust Co.) 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

Rowe v. Duetche Bank National Trust Co., 49 So. 3d 1285, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 20232, 2010 WL 5306529 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Contending that the trial court failed to rule on her properly served motion for disqualification within 30 days as required by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(j), petitioner seeks mandamus relief [1286]*1286in the form of an order compelling the lower tribunal clerk to reassign her case. Although the parties have stipulated to granting the relief sought, petitioner fails to show that, as contemplated by the rule, she has sought an order from the trial court directing the clerk to reassign the case. Making such a demand is required in order to establish an entitlement to this court’s intervention by writ of mandamus. See KKP Holdings, LLC v. Russell, 1 So.3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also Harrison v. Johnson, 934 So.2d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (denying mandamus relief where petitioner had failed to bring motion for reassignment before the trial court in order to obtain a ruling). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED as premature.

PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Contending that the trial court failed to rule on her properly served motion for disqualification within 30 days as required by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(j), petitioner seeks mandamus relief [1286]*1286in the form of an order compelling the lower tribunal clerk to reassign her case. Although the parties have stipulated to granting the relief sought, petitioner fails to show that, as contemplated by the rule, she has sought an order from the trial court directing the clerk to reassign the case. Making such a demand is required in order to establish an entitlement to this court’s intervention by writ of mandamus. See KKP Holdings, LLC v. Russell, 1 So.3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also Harrison v. Johnson, 934 So.2d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (denying mandamus relief where petitioner had failed to bring motion for reassignment before the trial court in order to obtain a ruling). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED as premature.

PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 So. 3d 1285, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 20232, 2010 WL 5306529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-duetche-bank-national-trust-co-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack