Campbell Soup Co. v. Roberts, 95-04051
| Decision Date | 01 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-04051,95-04051 |
| Citation | 676 So.2d 435 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2649 CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Honorable Susan W. ROBERTS, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
M. Diane Vogt, Tampa, for Petitioner.
John W. Frost, II and Mark A. Sessums of Frost, O'Toole & Saunders, P.A., Bartow, for Respondent.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Thomas E. Allison, Assistant Attorney General and Henry A. Gill, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
Campbell Soup Company (Campbell) filed its petition for writ of prohibition after the respondent judge denied its motion to disqualify her from presiding over a products liability trial as facially insufficient. Many of the grievances which Campbell claims unfairly prejudice it from receiving a fair trial can be characterized as adverse rulings, and cannot form the basis of a successful petition for writ of prohibition. Gilliam v. State, 582 So.2d 610 (Fla.1991). Two areas, however, cause us concern with regard to the facial sufficiency of the motion filed below.
The first relates to an unusual factual development involving Campbell's trial counsel. Concerned that local trial counsel was not prepared, and had not kept it informed of developments in the case, Campbell discharged the attorney shortly before the scheduled trial date. As would be expected, counsel then moved to withdraw from the case. The trial court denied the motion. Counsel was then forced into the untenable position of representing a corporate client which had discharged him, and with whom there was at least the prospect of becoming a civil antagonist. The trial court explained that its decision was made to protect Campbell's new counsel from being unprepared for the imminent trial date, and inferred that the discharged counsel would not have to participate in the trial itself. While the trial court's concern to assure a litigant is properly prepared for trial is laudable, we think other measures, such as a continuance, would have effected that design without forcing the party to continue in the case with counsel it had chosen to discharge.
Aggravating circumstances even more, the trial court clearly indicated that it was siding with the attorney in question in this dispute by stating, Based on this statement, Campbell's assertion in its motion and accompanying affidavit that these circumstances had given it a well-grounded fear that it would not receive a fair and impartial trial is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aquasol Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n
...So.3d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (noting: "It is well-settled that adverse rulings are insufficient to show bias"); Campbell Soup Co. v. Roberts, 676 So.2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).In the instant case, there was no dispute—and Aquasol conceded—that HSBC Bank was the holder of the note at the in......
-
Aquasol Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. HSBC Bank United States, 3D17-352
...3d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (noting: "It is well-settled that adverse rulings are insufficient to show bias"); Campbell Soup Co. v. Roberts, 676 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In the instant case, there was no dispute—and Aquasol conceded—that HSBC Bank was the holder of the note at the inc......
-
Martini v. Young
...could have also moved for a continuance in this case until the Martinis had obtained new counsel. See generally, Campbell Soup Co. v. Roberts, 676 So.2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In any event, even if Lagano's statements prove to be true, the Martinis' conduct in obtaining a new lawyer, as ci......
-
HOUSING AUTH. OF CITY OF TAMPA v. Burton
...defendant to amend his pleadings to include additional defenses, thus creating the appearance of favoritism); Campbell Soup Co. v. Roberts, 676 So.2d 435, 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (judge's statement that defendant's dismissed counsel was "innocent victim" and insistence that counsel continue ......