Samra v. Bedoyan
After the trial judge held a two-day evidentiary hearing — which the party and his new counsel were barred from attending because of privileged intercepted recordings — and entered a 51-page order sanctioning his former law firm for bad-faith misconduct, the party moved to disqualify the judge. The Third District granted prohibition, holding the motion was legally sufficient because a reasonably prudent person could conclude the findings against former counsel implicated the party himself, who had no opportunity to contest them, and because an overlapping motion to strike his pleadings remained pending.
Key facts
- Samra sought to disqualify a trial judge after the judge held a two-day evidentiary hearing—from which Samra and his new counsel were barred due to privileged intercepted recordings—and entered a 51-page sanctions order against his former law firm for bad-faith misconduct.
- The trial judge's sanctions order against former counsel contained findings that implicated Samra personally, and a separate motion to strike Samra's own pleadings remained pending before the same judge.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
A useful decision for practitioners seeking disqualification based on a judge's findings about counsel rather than the client — it stakes out an exception to the 'adverse rulings are not grounds for recusal' rule where… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
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.