DuPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY INC v. AQUAMAR (2009)

E.I. DuPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. AQUAMAR S.A., Molinos del Ecuador S.A., and Desarrollo Industrial Bioacuatico S.A., Respondents.

No. 4D09-2871.

Decided: September 30, 2009

Edward A. Moss of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Miami, for petitioner. No appearance required for respondents.

We deny DuPont's petition for writ of prohibition which sought review of its motion to disqualify the trial court judge, the fifth such motion DuPont has filed in this case. An attorney's legal campaign contributions within the statutorily permitted amount are not a legally sufficient ground for disqualification. MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990). None of the other allegations raised in the motion set forth an objectively reasonable basis for DuPont to fear the judge is biased.

The contributions from attorneys in the firms representing the plaintiffs in this case were all within the statutorily permitted amounts, and the cumulative total of $4650 which the attorneys in the firms contributed to the judge's reelection campaign does not approach the $3 million contribution at issue in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009). Contrary to DuPont's argument, the circumstances of this case are not equivalent, or anywhere close, to those presented in Caperton.

PER CURIAM.

POLEN, HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network