Saul Cimbler, Petitioner, v. Rebecca Greemberg, et al., Respondents. (2025)

In this trust dispute, petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition preventing the assigned trial judge from further presiding over his case. The basis for the motion for disqualification filed below is that the trial court refused to enter a default against respondents after they failed to comply with a court order requiring them to respond to the operative complaint and discovery and retain counsel for any actions undertaken in their capacity as co-trustees. Reiterating the well-entrenched principle that disqualification motions were never intended “to enable a discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings made,” we conclude that the allegations at issue here, without more, are insufficient to establish entitlement to prohibition. Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 31 (1921); see Delgado v. Miller, 358 So. 3d 801, 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Hodges v. State, 327 So. 3d 923, 923–24 (Fla 3d DCA 2021); Quintas Vazquez v. Smith, 318 So. 3d 579, 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). Accordingly, we deny the petition.

Petition denied.

PER CURIAM.