Preview
Filing # 144636455 E-Filed 02/25/2022 02:13:04 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BREVARD
col NTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 05-2020-CA-046078
JENNIFER URBANCZYK,
Plaintiff(s),
VS.
VICTORIA CANGELOSI AND
STEPHEN CANGELOSI,
Defendant(s).
cen en /
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO RECUSE TRIAL JUDGE
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, JENNIFER URBANCZYK, by and through his undersigned
counsel, pursuant to Florida Statute $38.10, and Rule 2.330, Florida Rules of Judicial
Administration, and respectfully moves for the disqualification or recusal of the Honorable
David Dugan, and in support states as follows:
1 On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff, Sean Watts, brought forward a Motion to Recuse
Judge Dugan based on facts and circumstances surrounding the actions on that particular day in
the case of Sean Watts vs. Egon Runo Halvard Teodorson. While some of the facts brought
forward pre-date the timing component of a typical Motion to Recuse, this Court understood,
considered, and ruled that those prior facts come into consideration given the connection and
relationship io the allegations on February 14, 2022. As such, the Plaintiff sets forth the
following facts:
Filing 144636455 J URBANCZYK VS V CANGELOSI 05-2020-CA-046078-XXXX-XX
In CASE No. 2020-CA-020857, Sean Watts vs. Egon Runo Halvard Teodorson,
Judge Dugan determined and ruled that Plaintiff properly laid a factual basis
A
sufficient for recusal
1 Recusal in cases involving Plaintiff's attorney should be granted based
on this alone.
In CASE No. 2020-CA-020557, Sean Watts vs. Egon Runo Halvard Teodorson,
Judge Dugan, over objection by Plaintiff, allowed Defendant to proceed to trial
with three xpert witnesses that were provided additional records and documents
well past the discovery cut-off and within days of trial. This runs counter to Judge
Dugan’s rulings and treatment of Plaintiff's law firm in the case of Tonya
Anderson vs. Anthony Caruso (see details below), where Judge Dugan ruled
completely opposite when Plaintiff's law firm presented with an issue much less
severe than Defendant in Marrs.
Disparate treatment: In Sean Watts vs. Egon Runo Halvard Teodorson, Judge
Dugan refused to enforce the deadlines in the Case Management Order and Pre-
trial Stipulation as it relates to Defense witnesses, In fact, Judge Dugan told
Plaintiff that he couldn't strictly enforce the order. However, in Tonya Anderson
vs. Anthony Caruso, Judge Dugan ruled in favor of Defense and specitically told
Plaintiff's law firm, “I need to enforce the order.” This was in relation to a simple
spine model.
d In CASE No. 05-2018-CA-012960, Tonya Anderson vs. Anthony Caruso, Judge
Dugan granted a mistrial based upon Plaintiffs Life Care Planner receiving a
oe
' Disqualification may also be required where the judge has previously granted disqualification on the same grounds.
Wall vyv. State,
State v. Cam Voong Leng, 987 So.2d 236, 237 (Fla. 4th ICA 2008) (citingig Salis State, 91)
910 So.2 Fla, 4th
DCA 2005).
Filing 144636455 J URBANCZYK VS V CANGELOSI 05-2020-CA-046078-XXXX-XX
prior record that did not change her opinions. Judge Dugan declared that the
Defense was prejudiced because it changed part of the foundational basis.
© Disparate treatment: In Harts, Judge Dugan allowed three (3) defense witnesses
to testify even though they received countless records within days of trial:
however, in Anderson, Judge Dugan declared a mistrial when Plaintiff law firm's
expert received a single record (from 9 years prior) that did not change her
opinion
In CASE No. 05-2019-CA-024925, Ricardo Madrigal vs. City of Palm Bay,
Judge Dugan, over objection by Plaintiff, allowed Defendant to present testimony
ofa surprise witness at trial. This witness was never disclosed before trial, and in
fact, the Defense did not even know they name of the individual - they simply
found a “tall, bald, white guy” that met a description by another witness. Judge
Dugan allowed this surprise testimony and gave no relief to Plaintiff.
& in CASE No. 2019-CA-010088, Keith Dreiling vs. Wal-Mart Stores East, Judge
Dugan granted a Defense Motion for Summary Judgment when Plaintiff had
depositions of Defendant employees set for same day as hearing. This matter is up
on appeal.
As a result of the above facts, the Plaintiff has an objective, reasonable, and well-
founded fear that he cannot receive a fair and impartial trial, and believes in good faith that Judge
David Dugan is likely to rule against him and in favor of Defendant in all disputed matters.
In compliance with Rule 2.330(g), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, this
Motion is timely.
Filing 144636455 J URBANCZYK VS V CANGELOSI 05-2020-CA-046078-XXXX-XX
4 Pursuant to Fla. Code of Judicial Conduct Cannon 3E (1), “A Judge shall
disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might be
reasonably questioned...”
5 In compliance with Rule 2.330(c)(4), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., there have been no
previously granted motions to disqualify filed under this rule in the case.
6. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 38.10 and Rule 2.330(c)(3), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., the
contents of this Motion are swom to by the Plaintiff in the Affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4
Pursuant to Rule 2.330(c)(5), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., counsel for Plaintiff is
separately certifying below that the Motion and the client's statements are made in good faith.
88 Pursuant to Rule 2.516 and Rule 2.330(d), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., a copy of this
Motion is being immediately served by email delivery upon the Honorable David Dugan.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
9 Disqualification may also be required where the judge has previously granted
disqualification on the same grounds. State y. Cam Voong Leng, 987 So.2d 236, 237 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2008) (citing Walls v. State, 910 So.2d 432 (Fla, 4th DCA 2005)).
10. A motion for disqualification must be granted if the alleged facts would cause a
reasonably prudent person to have a well-founded fear that he/she would not receive a fair and
impartial trial. Rogers v. State, 630 So.2d 513 (Fla.1993); Mulligan v. Mulligan, 817 So.24 791,
792 (Fla. 44th DCA 2004).3 In determining whether the motion is legally sufficient, the allegations
f2e (eid.
“must be taken as true and must be viewed from the movant's perspective.” Siege el y. State, 861
So.2d 90, 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Lt. “{A] judge may be disqualified due to prejudice towards an attorney where the
prejudice ‘is of such degree that it adversely affects the client.’ ” /d. (quoting Ginsberg
v. Holt.
86 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla.1956)).
Filing 144636455 J URBANCZYK VS V CANGELOSI 05-2020-CA-046078-XXXX-XX
12. When the Judge’s initial disqualification is not related to the issues of the
case, recusal should be granted in all cases with Plaintiff’s attorney. See Walls v. State, 910
So.2d 432 (Fla. 4th C A 2005).
13. The trial judge previously granted a motion to disqualify on identical grounds. See
Walls 20 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DO/
14, Disqualification may also be required where the judge has previously granted
disqualification on the same grounds. State v. Cam Voong Leng, 987 So.2d 236, 237 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2008) (citing Walls v. State, 910 So.2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
15. Having determined that the motion in Dunn was legally sufficient, the trial judge
erred in denying the motions to disqualify in these cases. In Wails v. State, 910 So.2d 432 (Fla.
4th DCA 2005), the petitioner sought disqualification of the trial judge because in another
unrelated case, the judge had granted a motion for disqualification based upon the judge's
acrimonious professional relationship with the attorney who also represented petitioner.
However, the trial judge denied that motion as legally insufficient. In granting prohibition relief,
the court in Walls observed that having granted the motion for disqualification in the first case,
thus indicating a finding that it was legally sufficient to show bias, the trial judge should have
likewise granted the motion filed on petitioner's behalf. In other words, where the alleged facts
are sufficient to establish a basis for disqualification, as the judge here determined was the case
with respect to the motion filed in Dunn, disqualitication is also warranted in other cases in
which the same basis exists and disqualification is timely sought. Shands Teaching Hosp. &
Clinics, Ine. v. Samuel ex rel. Mathis, 926 So. 2d 441, 444 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
WHE E FORE. the Plaintiff, JENNIFER URBANCZYK, respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court grant Plaintiff's Verified Motion to Recuse Trial Judge, and enter an Order of
disqualification of the Honorable David Dugan, and reassignment to another Circuit Judge.
Filing 144636455 J URBANCZYK VS V CANGELOSI 05-2020-CA-046078-XXXX-XX
CERTIFICATE OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL OF RECORD
I, Grant R, Gillenwater, as counsel of record for the Plaintiff, certify that pursuant to Rule
2.330 (c) (5), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., that the foregoing factual allegations and statements in the
foregoing Motion are ade in good faith.
J hip
>
GrapfR. Gillenwater, Esquire
FBN.102191
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was filed on this ny of February, 2022, by
using the Florida Courts eFiling Portal, which will send notice of electronic filing to David R.
Kuhn, Esq., Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue, McLain & Mangan, P.A., 201 E. Pine Street, Suite
1500, P. O. Box 4940, Orlando, FL 32802-4940 at drk.servic rissman.com
sf Grant R. Gillenwater
Grant R. Gillenwater, Esquire
FBN 102191
Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
940 South Harbor City Boulevard
Melbourne, FL 32901
321-802-5038, fax 321-802-5034
Primary email: Gillenwater orthepeople.com
Secondary email: kweaver: forthepeople.com
mkettlewell@forthepeople.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Filing 144636455 J URBANCZYK VS V CANGELOSI 05-2020-CA-046078-XXXX-XX
Preview
Filing # 144636455 E-Filed 02/25/2022 02:13:04 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BREVARD col NTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 05-2020-CA-046078 JENNIFER URBANCZYK, Plaintiff(s), VS. VICTORIA CANGELOSI AND STEPHEN CANGELOSI, Defendant(s). cen en / PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO RECUSE TRIAL JUDGE COMES NOW the Plaintiff, JENNIFER URBANCZYK, by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to Florida Statute $38.10, and Rule 2.330, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, and respectfully moves for the disqualification or recusal of the Honorable David Dugan, and in support states as follows: 1 On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff, Sean Watts, brought forward a Motion to Recuse Judge Dugan based on facts and circumstances surrounding the actions on that particular day in the case of Sean Watts vs. Egon Runo Halvard Teodorson. While some of the facts brought forward pre-date the timing component of a typical Motion to Recuse, this Court understood, considered, and ruled that those prior facts come into consideration given the connection and relationship io the allegations on February 14, 2022. As such, the Plaintiff sets forth the following facts: Filing 144636455 J URBANCZYK VS V CANGELOSI 05-2020-CA-046078-XXXX-XX In CASE No. 2020-CA-020857, Sean Watts vs. Egon Runo Halvard Teodorson, Judge Dugan determined and ruled that Plaintiff properly laid a factual basis A sufficient for recusal 1 Recusal in cases involving Plaintiff's attorney should be granted based on this alone. In CASE No. 2020-CA-020557, Sean Watts vs. Egon Runo Halvard Teodorson, Judge Dugan, over objection by Plaintiff, allowed Defendant to proceed to trial with three xpert witnesses that were provided additional records and documents well past the discovery cut-off and within days of trial. This runs counter to Judge Dugan’s rulings and treatment of Plaintiff's law firm in the case of Tonya Anderson vs. Anthony Caruso (see details below), where Judge Dugan ruled completely opposite when Plaintiff's law firm presented with an issue much less severe than Defendant in Marrs. Disparate treatment: In Sean Watts vs. Egon Runo Halvard Teodorson, Judge Dugan refused to enforce the deadlines in the Case Management Order and Pre- trial Stipulation as it relates to Defense witnesses, In fact, Judge Dugan told Plaintiff that he couldn't strictly enforce the order. However, in Tonya Anderson vs. Anthony Caruso, Judge Dugan ruled in favor of Defense and specitically told Plaintiff's law firm, “I need to enforce the order.” This was in relation to a simple spine model. d In CASE No. 05-2018-CA-012960, Tonya Anderson vs. Anthony Caruso, Judge Dugan granted a mistrial based upon Plaintiffs Life Care Planner receiving a oe ' Disqualification may also be required where the judge has previously granted disqualification on the same grounds. Wall vyv. State, State v. Cam Voong Leng, 987 So.2d 236, 237 (Fla. 4th ICA 2008) (citingig Salis State, 91) 910 So.2 Fla, 4th DCA 2005). Filing 144636455 J URBANCZYK VS V CANGELOSI 05-2020-CA-046078-XXXX-XX prior record that did not change her opinions. Judge Dugan declared that the Defense was prejudiced because it changed part of the foundational basis. © Disparate treatment: In Harts, Judge Dugan allowed three (3) defense witnesses to testify even though they received countless records within days of trial: however, in Anderson, Judge Dugan declared a mistrial when Plaintiff law firm's expert received a single record (from 9 years prior) that did not change her opinion In CASE No. 05-2019-CA-024925, Ricardo Madrigal vs. City of Palm Bay, Judge Dugan, over objection by Plaintiff, allowed Defendant to present testimony ofa surprise witness at trial. This witness was never disclosed before trial, and in fact, the Defense did not even know they name of the individual - they simply found a “tall, bald, white guy” that met a description by another witness. Judge Dugan allowed this surprise testimony and gave no relief to Plaintiff. & in CASE No. 2019-CA-010088, Keith Dreiling vs. Wal-Mart Stores East, Judge Dugan granted a Defense Motion for Summary Judgment when Plaintiff had depositions of Defendant employees set for same day as hearing. This matter is up on appeal. As a result of the above facts, the Plaintiff has an objective, reasonable, and well- founded fear that he cannot receive a fair and impartial trial, and believes in good faith that Judge David Dugan is likely to rule against him and in favor of Defendant in all disputed matters. In compliance with Rule 2.330(g), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, this Motion is timely. Filing 144636455 J URBANCZYK VS V CANGELOSI 05-2020-CA-046078-XXXX-XX 4 Pursuant to Fla. Code of Judicial Conduct Cannon 3E (1), “A Judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might be reasonably questioned...” 5 In compliance with Rule 2.330(c)(4), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., there have been no previously granted motions to disqualify filed under this rule in the case. 6. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 38.10 and Rule 2.330(c)(3), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., the contents of this Motion are swom to by the Plaintiff in the Affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4 Pursuant to Rule 2.330(c)(5), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., counsel for Plaintiff is separately certifying below that the Motion and the client's statements are made in good faith. 88 Pursuant to Rule 2.516 and Rule 2.330(d), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., a copy of this Motion is being immediately served by email delivery upon the Honorable David Dugan. MEMORANDUM OF LAW 9 Disqualification may also be required where the judge has previously granted disqualification on the same grounds. State y. Cam Voong Leng, 987 So.2d 236, 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Walls v. State, 910 So.2d 432 (Fla, 4th DCA 2005)). 10. A motion for disqualification must be granted if the alleged facts would cause a reasonably prudent person to have a well-founded fear that he/she would not receive a fair and impartial trial. Rogers v. State, 630 So.2d 513 (Fla.1993); Mulligan v. Mulligan, 817 So.24 791, 792 (Fla. 44th DCA 2004).3 In determining whether the motion is legally sufficient, the allegations f2e (eid. “must be taken as true and must be viewed from the movant's perspective.” Siege el y. State, 861 So.2d 90, 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Lt. “{A] judge may be disqualified due to prejudice towards an attorney where the prejudice ‘is of such degree that it adversely affects the client.’ ” /d. (quoting Ginsberg v. Holt. 86 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla.1956)). Filing 144636455 J URBANCZYK VS V CANGELOSI 05-2020-CA-046078-XXXX-XX 12. When the Judge’s initial disqualification is not related to the issues of the case, recusal should be granted in all cases with Plaintiff’s attorney. See Walls v. State, 910 So.2d 432 (Fla. 4th C A 2005). 13. The trial judge previously granted a motion to disqualify on identical grounds. See Walls 20 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DO/ 14, Disqualification may also be required where the judge has previously granted disqualification on the same grounds. State v. Cam Voong Leng, 987 So.2d 236, 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Walls v. State, 910 So.2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). 15. Having determined that the motion in Dunn was legally sufficient, the trial judge erred in denying the motions to disqualify in these cases. In Wails v. State, 910 So.2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the petitioner sought disqualification of the trial judge because in another unrelated case, the judge had granted a motion for disqualification based upon the judge's acrimonious professional relationship with the attorney who also represented petitioner. However, the trial judge denied that motion as legally insufficient. In granting prohibition relief, the court in Walls observed that having granted the motion for disqualification in the first case, thus indicating a finding that it was legally sufficient to show bias, the trial judge should have likewise granted the motion filed on petitioner's behalf. In other words, where the alleged facts are sufficient to establish a basis for disqualification, as the judge here determined was the case with respect to the motion filed in Dunn, disqualitication is also warranted in other cases in which the same basis exists and disqualification is timely sought. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Ine. v. Samuel ex rel. Mathis, 926 So. 2d 441, 444 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) WHE E FORE. the Plaintiff, JENNIFER URBANCZYK, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant Plaintiff's Verified Motion to Recuse Trial Judge, and enter an Order of disqualification of the Honorable David Dugan, and reassignment to another Circuit Judge. Filing 144636455 J URBANCZYK VS V CANGELOSI 05-2020-CA-046078-XXXX-XX CERTIFICATE OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL OF RECORD I, Grant R, Gillenwater, as counsel of record for the Plaintiff, certify that pursuant to Rule 2.330 (c) (5), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., that the foregoing factual allegations and statements in the foregoing Motion are ade in good faith. J hip > GrapfR. Gillenwater, Esquire FBN.102191 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was filed on this ny of February, 2022, by using the Florida Courts eFiling Portal, which will send notice of electronic filing to David R. Kuhn, Esq., Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue, McLain & Mangan, P.A., 201 E. Pine Street, Suite 1500, P. O. Box 4940, Orlando, FL 32802-4940 at drk.servic rissman.com sf Grant R. Gillenwater Grant R. Gillenwater, Esquire FBN 102191 Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 940 South Harbor City Boulevard Melbourne, FL 32901 321-802-5038, fax 321-802-5034 Primary email: Gillenwater orthepeople.com Secondary email: kweaver: forthepeople.com mkettlewell@forthepeople.com Attorney for Plaintiff Filing 144636455 J URBANCZYK VS V CANGELOSI 05-2020-CA-046078-XXXX-XX