Polanco v. Citizens Property Ins. Corp. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •        Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed February 27, 2019.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D18-2364
    Lower Tribunal No. 16-307
    ________________
    Leonardo Polanco, et al.,
    Petitioners,
    vs.
    Citizens Property Insurance Corporation,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
    County, Miguel M. De La O, Judge.
    A Case of Original Jurisdiction—Prohibition.
    Barnard Law Offices, L.P., and Andrew Barnard and Garrett William Haakon
    Clifford, for petitioners.
    Patricia Gladson, General Counsel, and Gabriela Jimenez Salomon, Assistant
    General Counsel; Link & Rockenbach, PA, and Kara Berard Rockenbach and Daniel
    M. Schwarz (West Palm Beach), for respondent.
    Before SALTER, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    Petitioners seek in this Court writs of both prohibition and certiorari.
    Petitioners assert that we should: (a) grant prohibition, and prohibit the trial court
    from entering a final judgment on Petitioners’ first-party insurance claim against
    Respondent, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation; and (b) grant certiorari, and
    quash all orders entered by the judge who presided over the jury trial. Petitioners
    allege that the judge presiding over the trial – a county court judge who asserted
    authority to serve as an acting circuit court judge pursuant to Administrative Orders
    18-45 and 18-20, issued by the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of
    Florida – lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, so that the resulting
    proceedings were void. Because this Court lacks the authority to review matters
    relating to judicial assignments arising out of administrative orders, “we are
    precluded from reaching the substantive issues raised,” and therefore we dismiss this
    portion of the petition. Ortiz v. State, 
    689 So. 2d 353
    , 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); see
    also Wild v. Dozier, 
    672 So. 2d 16
    , 18 (Fla. 1996) (“Accordingly, we hold that a
    litigant who is affected by a judicial assignment made by a chief judge of a judicial
    circuit must challenge the assignment in the trial court and then seek review in this
    Court by way of petition for writ of prohibition or petition for relief under the ‘all
    writs’ power.”).
    Petitioners also seek review, via prohibition, of the trial court’s post-trial order
    denying disqualification. Because the trial court has been reassigned to a different
    2
    division, we dismiss, as moot, that portion of the petition. Reiser v. State, 
    894 So. 2d 302
     (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
    Petition dismissed.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-2364

Filed Date: 2/27/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/28/2019