03-2930 CAMACHO V. KENDALL

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 03-2930 CAMACHO V. KENDALL

Case Date: 11/26/2003

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2003

DIAMY CAMACHO, Petitioner, vs. KENDALL HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD., d/b/a KENDALL MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent.

** ** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D03-2930 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 00-24422

Opinion filed November 26, 2003. A Case of Original Jurisdiction - Prohibition. Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez; Robert M. Haggard, for petitioner. Parenti, Falk, Waas, Hernandez & Cortina and Gail Leverett Parenti, for respondent. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GREEN and WELLS, JJ. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge. This is an application for prohibition claiming that the trial judge should have granted the plaintiff's motion for

disqualification filed after a mistrial was declared during a jury

trial.

The record shows1 that the now-challenged actions of the

trial court did not stem, as the petitioner contends, from any disqualifying counsel. they personal bias or prejudice towards her or her

See Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3-E (1)(a). well-considered to and appropriate corrective

Rather, of

involved

exercises

"judicial

responsibility

take

action"

against

manifest improprieties.

Birotte v. State, 795 So. 2d 112, 113

(Fla. 4th DCA 2001), review denied, 819 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 2002). Prohibition is therefore denied. See State ex rel. Fuente v.

Himes, 160 Fla. 757, 36 So. 2d 433, 438-39 (1948)("A lawyer cannot disagree with the court and deliberately provoke an incident rendering the court disqualified to proceed further."); Ellis v. Henning, 678 So. 2d 825, 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)("A trial judge's expression of dissatisfaction with counsel or a client's behavior alone does not give rise to a reasonable belief that the trial judge is biased and the client cannot receive a fair trial."), review denied, 699 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1997). See generally 5-H

Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1997); see also Kopel v. Kopel, 832 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring in denial of rehearing en banc), review denied, 848 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2003).2 Prohibition denied.
1 2

Particularly the parts supplied only by the respondent.

It is unnecessary to resolve the separate, substantial issue of the timeliness of the motion for disqualification below. See Fla.R.Jud. Admin. 2.160(e).

Download 03-2930 CAMACHO V. KENDALL.pdf