Van v. Unifund

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED QUOC VAN, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D14-4232 UNIFUND CCR, LLC., Respondent. ________________________________/ Opinion filed January 16, 2015 Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Jessica Recksiedler, Respondent Judge. Quoc Van, Sanford, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Petitioner challenges the denial of his verified motion to disqualify the trial judge. We conclude that the motion was legally sufficient1 and, accordingly, grant the writ of prohibition. See Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“While it is well-settled that a judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence, he or she may not prejudge the case.”). WRIT GRANTED. SAWAYA, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur. 1 In determining the legal sufficiency of the motion, we must presume the facts alleged to be true. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(f).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.