Ricardy Banks v. Noemea Vilas Banks

OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

RICARDY BANKS,
Petitioner,

Vv.

NOEMEA VILAS BANKS,
Respondent.

No. 4D2025-3026
[February 4, 2026]

Petition for writ of prohibition to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Marlon J. Weiss, Judge; L.T. Case No.
062024DRO017727AXXXCE.

Marck K. Joseph of The Joseph Firm, P.A., Miami, for petitioner.

Kathleen K. Pena of Kathleen K. Pena, Attorney at Law, Inc., Fort
Lauderdale, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Ricardy Banks petitions for a writ of prohibition seeking the
disqualification of the assigned judge. We issued an order directing
respondent Noemea Banks to respond to the petition, and after
considering the response, we grant the petition.

The original motion to disqualify was filed on August 8, 2025. The
motion alleged fifteen grounds for disqualification, but we limit our
discussion to the timeliness of the circuit judge’s ruling on the motion. In
addition to the certificate of service, the record includes evidence that the
motion was served on the judge using the state e-filing portal on August
8, 2025. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.516(c) (“[S]ervice on a
judge or other court official must be made electronically under subdivision
(b) and the Florida Courts Technology Standards.”); Fla. R. Gen. Prac. &
Jud. Admin 2.516(b)(1) (“Documents filed through the portal must be
served using the portal’s e-service function.”). The record also includes an
email sent on August 8, 2025, directly to the email address the judge
provided for “all correspondence with the court.” The judge ultimately
entered an order denying the motion on September 22, 2025, forty-five

days after the motion was served on the judge. The order indicates the
motion was “never served” on the judge and was “legally insufficient to
merit disqualification.”

Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.330(I)
provides:

Time for Determination. The judge against whom the
motion for disqualification has been filed shall take action on
the motion immediately, but no later than 30 days after the
service of the motion as set forth in subdivision (d). If the
motion is not denied within 30 days of service, the motion is
deemed granted and the moving party may seek an order from
the court directing the clerk to reassign the case.

We understand that the judge might not have seen the motion within
thirty days of service. But Mr. Banks not only served the judge via the e-
filing portal, he also served the judge at the judge’s designated email
address for all communications. By failing to rule on the motion within
thirty days of service, the motion is deemed granted. Id.; see also, Pekel v.
Leyva, 399 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).

We grant the petition and quash the order denying the motion to
disqualify.

Petition granted.
KUNTZ, C.J., CONNER and SHEPHERD, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.