Shabtai v. Shabtai

• Docket Number: 3D23-1321
• Decision Date: 30 August 2023
• Parties: Benjamin Shabtai, Petitioner, v. Stacey Cooper Shabtai, Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

1

Benjamin Shabtai, Petitioner,
v.
Stacey Cooper Shabtai, Respondent.

No. 3D23-1321

Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

August 30, 2023

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction - Prohibition. Lower Tribunal No. 23-4272

Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Thomas R. Julin and William King Hill, for petitioner.

Daniels, Rodriguez, Berkeley, Daniels & Cruz, P.A., and Lorne E. Berkeley (Sunrise), for respondent.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

GORDO, J.

2

Benjamin Shabtai ("Benjamin") petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition based on the trial court's denial of his motion for disqualification. We grant the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Benjamin and Stacey Cooper Shabtai ("Stacey"), a married couple in the process of divorcing, are engaged in this separate civil action. The parties are litigating over their respective management and ownership rights in Serafina, their family restaurant. Stacey filed a complaint against Benjamin alleging breach of an operating agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and dissociation, and requested the appointment of a receiver.

The litigation proceeded with the parties filing various motions. Among them, Benjamin filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. The motion alleged that Stacey was interfering with the operation of Serafina and surreptitiously placed audio-capable Google Nest cameras in the main office without Benjamin's consent. That same day, Stacey filed an omnibus motion urging the trial court to appoint a receiver.

The trial court set an evidentiary hearing on the emergency motion for temporary injunction. At the outset of the hearing, the trial court announced there would be insufficient time to consider evidence but that "[m]aybe we

3

can take care of something today." Prior to either side presenting any arguments, the trial court stated the following:

I've been doing this a long time, and I can say that you-all might be the exception to the rule. But I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate set of books or righteous tax return in my life. I just think you need to look hard at everything that's been done Miami-Dade County businesses, everything - I've seen the litigation, family court, this court, ends up being some question about that.

The trial court then sua sponte instructed the attorneys "to give to the clients a budget of all of the activities that they think may be necessary" to continue litigation. Counsel for the parties proceeded to make their respective arguments as to the Google Nest cameras and access to any stored recorded audio and video footage. The trial court then stated it was out of time and was "going to allow all the cameras that anyone wants to put anywhere. And I'm going to allow everybody to take audio and video of everybody doing everything anywhere." Discussion as to Serafina's WiFi access and internal system ensued.

The trial court stated the following:

And you can see -- gentlemen, for the lawyers, you can already see that I'm about a hair's breadth away from appointing somebody neutral, because there's no way that I can - you've got access; I don't have access.

4

The trial court communicated to the lawyers that they "need to have a real heart to heart with the clients about anything they don't want everyone in the world to know about with respect to the way the business was being operated." Benjamin personally engaged the trial court in dialogue and stated that the main issue is who would continue to manage Serafina. The trial court responded by stating:

I hear it's a management issue. If the manager should prevail, that's your side. I also hear that the manager has a conflict of interest with respect to

...