Court Bounces Governor's Bid to Boot Pariente From Case About Future Justices
Gov. Rick Scott loses a disqualification request in a case to determine whether he or a successor gets to name the next three new Florida Supreme Court justices.
November 29, 2017 at 10:42 AM
3 minute read
Photo by J. Albert Diaz/ ALM
In a court order, the Florida Supreme Court on Wednesday denied Gov. Rick Scott's attempt to boot Justice Barbara Pariente from a case determining the future makeup of the court.
A 10-word sentence was enough for Pariente to respond. The disqualification target normally makes a solo decision on these requests. The order cited no case law in rejecting recusal.
Scott is intent on appointing the next three justices on his final day in office in 2019. Following arguments on the issue Nov. 1, the governor pointed to some Pariente comments caught on a live microphone to support his claim of bias.
At one point, Pariente pointed to a list of the members of the Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission and she was heard in a conversation with Chief Justice Jorge Labarga saying “crazy” on an official recording.
The League of Women Voters of Florida is the lead plaintiff in a petition seeking a determination that Scott's successor has the power to appoint successors for Pariente and two other justices who are coincidentally leaving the seven-member court on the day Scott's term ends and his replacement is sworn in.
All three outgoing justices — R. Fred Lewis, Peggy Quince and Pariente — are considered left of center. Three of the remaining justices are considered conservative. Before Scott's first selection, C. Alan Lawson, was named to the court last December, 5-2 decisions became routine with Justices Charles Canady and Ricky Polston in the minority.
John Mills of The Mills Firm in Tallahassee, representing the League of Women Voters, had no comment on the decision Wednesday. But he scoffed at Scott's request in a response filed Tuesday, saying it “is as strident as it is baseless.”
“As titillating as a tale may first appear when it starts with judges being inadvertently caught on a 'hot mic' while chatting between oral arguments, it is now beyond clear that 'there is no there there' in this case,” he wrote. “Giving in to this transparent bullying tactic would set a dangerous precedent, guaranteeing a motion to disqualify her in every case involving the respondent from this point forward.”
Mills' response cited a 1980 Florida Supreme Court decision leaving recusal questions solely to the targeted justice based on “both the legal sufficiency of a request seeking his disqualification and the propriety of withdrawing in any particular circumstances.”
John Tupps, communications director for the governor, said Scott “expects all judges to be fair and impartial. It is disappointing that today's decision was made without providing any plausible justification or explanation for Justice Pariente's comments. Given the gravity of this case, Floridians deserve better.”
Without Pariente, the court would sit with six justices. Mills noted a 3-3 tie would require the appointment of a chief judge from one of the district courts of appeal, which would delay decisions.
The Republican governor and Republican-controlled Legislature are frequently at odds over Supreme Court action.
Pariente has written this year against capital punishment after the court was forced by the U.S. Supreme Court to review a series of death penalty cases. She also has been in the majority in several cases ruling state laws unconstitutional, most recently in a Nov. 9 decision striking down part of a 2013 medical malpractice law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250