Gruber v. Orshan
A paternity litigant sought a writ prohibiting all eighty-one judges of the Eleventh Circuit from hearing his case — because the opposing party is the Chief Judge's step-daughter represented by the Chief Judge's husband's firm — or, alternatively, mandamus compelling the Chief Judge to transfer venue or request an out-of-circuit temporary assignment under Rule 2.215(b)(4). The Third District dismissed the prohibition count because an order denying blanket disqualification is reviewable by direct appeal (and no such motion had been filed below), and denied mandamus because the Chief Judge has no ministerial duty to entertain such requests.
Key facts
- Paternity litigant sought a writ of prohibition against all eighty-one judges of the Eleventh Circuit and mandamus against the Chief Judge, alleging conflict of interest because the opposing party is the Chief Judge's step-daughter represented by a law firm where the Chief Judge's husband is associated.
- The trial court did not rule on a motion for blanket disqualification of all circuit judges, and the litigant instead filed an original writ petition in the appellate court requesting circuit-wide disqualification or, alternatively, compelling the Chief Judge to transfer venue or seek a temporary out-of-circuit assignment.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion maps the procedural path for litigants confronting an alleged circuit-wide conflict: the request for blanket disqualification must be made to the assigned judge and, if denied, reviewed by appeal rather than… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.