The power is gone.

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 18

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF MAY 8, 2026

TRIAL COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER A PARTY AGAINST WHOM DEFAULT JUDGMENT ENTERED TO SIT FOR A DEPOSITION IN THE CASE IN CHIEF

Afriyie v. Friend, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D880 (Fla. Apr. 29, 2026):

The court entered default judgment against the defendant on January 7, 2026, awarding $454,166 in actual damages plus treble damages. The damages were unliquidated and awarded without an evidentiary hearing.

After that judgment was entered, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal at 9:07 am on the morning of February 6, 2026. At 10:30 on that same morning, the trial court entered a discovery order which extended expired pre-judgment discovery for sixty days, and also compelled the petitioner, a New York resident, to appear in person for a deposition in Miami-Dade County, followed by a scheduling order which set the deposition at defense counsel’s office and prohibited any objection to the date or location.

The appellate court granted certiorari and quashed both orders. It advised that once the court enters final judgment, it loses the ability to order discovery aimed at the merits in the case in chief.” Aside from Rule 1.290(b) (to preserve testimony) and Rule 1.560 (discovery in aid of execution) which were not implicated in this case, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to compel a deposition under these circumstances.

PROHIBITION GRANTED TO STOP FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AFTER A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT MOTION TO DISQUALIFY; APPELLATE COURT HOLDS THE VERIFIED MOTION ALLEGED FACTS THAT WOULD CREATE A WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF NOT RECEIVING A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL HEARING

District Board of Trustees of Miami-Dade College v. Dunn, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D877 (Fla. Apr. 29, 2026):

The defendant sought a writ of prohibition preventing the trial judge from conducting further proceedings after a verified motion to disqualify was filed.

The appellate court granted the petition.

Without providing any facts, the court found the verified motion was legally sufficient because the facts as alleged would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial hearing.