15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1119a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Motion to set aside order denying medical provider’s motion for summary judgment, alleging ex parte communication between judge entering order and insurer’s counsel, is denied where judge adopted insurer’s arguments and requested through judicial assistant that insurer draft order
GULF COAST INJURY CENTER NORTH, L.L.C. d/b/a GULF COAST INJURY CENTER, a/a/o ROBERTO ALBIZAR, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, County Civil. Case No. 07-CC-011779, Division “J”. September 11, 2008. Gaston J. Fernandez, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, for Plaintiff. Michael P. Liebgold, Luks, Santaniello, Perez, Petrillo & Gold, Tampa, for Defendant.
[Editor’s note: Order on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment published at 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 929b]
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on September 4, 2008 upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having been otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereupon, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. On June 24, 2008, a lengthy hearing was held in front of Judge Gilbert on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. At said hearing both parties presented case law and statutes for the Court to consider. The same counsel for both parties appeared at both the June 24, 2008 and September 4, 2008 hearings.
2. On June 18, 2008, the Defendant served “Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment,” a 7-page document containing the Defendant’s argument and supporting case law and statutory authority supporting its opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. At the conclusion of the June 24, 2008 hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement.
4. On June 27, 2008, per Judge Gilbert’s request, this Court’s Judicial Assistant requested the Defendant submit an order denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the aforementioned “Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
5. On June 27, 2008 the Defendant submitted its proposed 7-page Order, containing the identical arguments made in the aforementioned Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
6. Defendant’s counsel, an officer of the Court, represented at the September 4, 2008 hearing that there had been no ex parte communication with Judge Gilbert before, during, or after the June 24, 2008 hearing on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. This Court has no reason to believe otherwise.
7. On July 10, 2008, 13th Circuit Court Judge James Arnold entered the Defendant’s proposed Order that was requested by Judge Gilbert though this Court’s Judicial Assistant, denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
8. As a lengthy hearing on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was held, both parties presented their arguments and authority to the Court, the Court took those arguments under advisement, and ultimately ruled against the Plaintiff with no allegation or evidence of ex parte communication between the Court and the Defendant. Simply put, the Court adopted the arguments made by the Defendant in its aforementioned “Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
9. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED.
