Background
Tomax 2015, LLC petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent the assigned trial judge from continuing to preside over a civil case involving Gevajoni, LLC. Tomax alleged that the judge entered a June 9, 2026 final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs without a hearing, overlooked Tomax’s responsive motions, allowed prohibited “fees for fees,” and failed to apportion fees between Tomax and another entity.
Tomax had consolidated appeals pending in the Third District challenging the same underlying rulings. It also moved below to disqualify the trial judge.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District denied the petition. The court held that the trial court correctly denied Tomax’s disqualification motion as legally insufficient because the allegations, even if true, reflected only disagreement with adverse rulings.
Adverse rulings alone do not establish the bias or prejudice required for judicial disqualification, the court explained. Challenges to the fee judgment and related rulings belonged in Tomax’s pending appeals, not in a prohibition proceeding seeking to remove the judge.
Key Takeaways
- A party cannot obtain judicial disqualification merely by alleging that the judge made erroneous adverse rulings.
- Claims concerning a fee award, including hearing, apportionment, and “fees for fees” issues, were already subject to appellate review.
- Unsworn assertions by counsel about a judge’s demeanor cannot establish factual support for disqualification.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the narrow role of prohibition in judicial-disqualification disputes. Litigants must allege legally sufficient facts showing bias or prejudice, rather than repackage objections to rulings as a basis to remove the judge.