Shah v. Harding, 3D02-1598.
| Decision Date | 05 February 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D02-1598.,3D02-1598. |
| Citation | 839 So.2d 765 |
| Parties | Karla SHAH, Appellant, v. Maria-Elena B. HARDING, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Billbrough & Marks, and G. Bart Billbrough, Miami, for appellant.
Buchbinder & Elegant, and Harris J. Buchbinder, Miami, for appellee.
Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER and SHEVIN, JJ.
Appellant, Karla Shah ("Shah"), seeks a new trial based upon the trial court's denial of her motion to recuse the trial judge. We reverse because the trial judge failed to follow the proper procedure in consideration of a recusal motion.
Appellee, Maria-Elena Harding ("Harding"), sued Shah for breach of a loan repayment agreement. Several months later, the trial court told the parties to appear in the trial judge's chambers at 10:30 a.m. for a hearing on pending pre-trial motions and for trial. The morning of the hearing, Shah's counsel called the judge's chambers and stated that Shah was running late. The judicial assistant advised Shah's counsel to get to the courthouse as soon as possible, because Harding's counsel was already present. Shah's counsel was further informed that it was uncertain what motions would be heard, and unclear what time proceedings would commence.
Shah and her counsel arrived at chambers approximately forty minutes late. Harding and her counsel were not present at that time. The trial court advised Shah that it entered a final default judgment as to liability only.
Within an hour, the trial court called the parties to appear back in chambers for another hearing that same day at 2:00 p.m. Harding's counsel appeared in chambers for this hearing, while Shah's counsel attended telephonically. Although Harding's counsel did not utter a word, the trial judge stated that Harding's counsel "asked me to set aside the default." At Harding's counsel's request, the trial judge set trial for the following morning, even though Shah's counsel stated the case was not yet ready, there was a pending motion for continuance, and there was outstanding discovery which had not yet been produced.
Based upon these events, Shah prepared a motion to recuse the trial judge, alleging an ex parte conversation had taken place, and that Shah doubted the trial judge's impartiality. Shah filed the motion the following morning, which was the morning of trial. Shah informed the court a motion to recuse was being prepared and did not show up for the 9:45 a.m. trial.
When neither Shah nor her attorney appeared, the trial judge announced: Thereafter, the trial judge ordered Harding's counsel to present his opening statement.
Nine minutes later, the trial judge interrupted the opening statement and stated,
Harding's counsel then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes-Fauli, 3D04-2079.
...disqualification before resolving any other matters. Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla.2000); Shah v. Harding, 839 So.2d 765, 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Loevinger v. Northrup, 624 So.2d 374, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Stimpson Computing Scale Co., Inc. a Div. of Globe Slicin......
-
Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes-Fauli, Case No. 3D04-2079 (FL 12/22/2004), Case No. 3D04-2079.
...disqualification before resolving any other matters. Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 2000); Shah v. Harding, 839 So. 2d 765, 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Loevinger v. Northrup, 624 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Stimpson Computing Scale Co., Inc. a Div. of Globe Sl......
-
Hoffman v. Crosby, 1D04-3307.
...and should not have considered the motion for new trial. See Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So.2d 1063 (Fla.2000); Shah v. Harding, 839 So.2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). The circuit court in its appellate capacity should have reversed the order denying the motion for new trial and remanded fo......
-
Brown v. State, 1D01-4018.
...before resolving any other matters. See Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 2000); Shah v. Harding, 839 So.2d 765, 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Loevinger v. Northrup, 624 So.2d 374, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Once the motion has been filed, no further action can be taken, even ......