Opinion filed April 29, 2026.Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-0438
Lower Tribunal No. 25-19608-CA-01
District Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College,Petitioner,
vs.
Marvin Dunn,Respondent.
Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Dewhirst, SolicitorGeneral, and Jason J. Muehlhoff, Chief Deputy Solicitor General and CaseyJ. Witte, Solicitor General Fellow (Tallahassee); Continental PLLC, andJesus M. Suarez, and Carmen M. Cartaya; Office of Legal Affairs MiamiDade College, and Javier A. Ley-Soto, for petitioner.
Rivero Mestre LLP, and Andres Rivero; and The Brodsky Law Firm,and Richard E. Brodsky, for respondent.
Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.
Original opinion page 2
2PER CURIAM.The District Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College seeks a writ ofprohibition preventing the trial judge from conducting further proceedings inits case. “A motion to recuse or disqualify a trial judge is legally sufficientwhen the alleged facts would create in a reasonably prudent person awell-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Valdes-Fauli v.Valdes-Fauli, 903 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). A review of theverified motion to disqualify demonstrates that it is legally sufficient to createin a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear that they would notreceive a fair hearing before the judge. See Tundidor v. State, 361 So. 3d775, 778 (Fla. 2023) (“We conclude that the combination of certaincircumstances contained in the allegations . . . would create in a reasonablyprudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartialproceeding. . . . [namely] the hugging . . . in the court room while still wearinga robe [] at the conclusion of the . . . case, and the personal exchange . . . inwhich the judge commiserated with [the opposing party].”). Accordingly, wegrant the petition.Petition granted.
Opinion text and original PDF from Florida Third District Court of Appeal · Source opinion