CAMACHO V. KENDALL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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. ** CASE NO. 3D03-2930 KENDALL HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD., d/b/a KENDALL MEDICAL CENTER, ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 00-24422 Respondent. ** ** 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 The record shows1 that the now-challenged actions of the trial. trial court did not stem, as the petitioner contends, from any disqualifying counsel. they bias or prejudice towards her See Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3-E (1)(a). involved judicial personal well-considered responsibility manifest improprieties. to and take appropriate corrective or Rather, exercises action her of against 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).

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.