IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA INDEPENDENT MORTGAGE COMPANY ~ CENTRAL Ml, Plaintiff, vs. CASENO: 09-CA-2215 FRANK C. ZONDLO, LUZ ZONDLO, SANDESTIN OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC, INSPIRATION AT SANDESTIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and INSPIRATION AT SANDESTIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, Defendants. / DEFENDANTS’ MOTIO} TRANS IF ACTI Defendants, FRANK C. ZONDLO and LUZ ZONDLO (“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, move to transfer this action, and as grounds therefore would state as follows: 1. On o about November 5, 2009, the Plaintiff filed this mortgage foreclosure complaint against the Defendants. 2. The case was assigned to the Honorable Circuit Court Judge W. Howard LaPorte, 3, On June 30, 2010, the Chief Judge for the First Tudicial Circuit issued Administrative Order No. 2010-32 (“Order”) a copy of which is attached hereto. The effective date of the Order “is July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2001, unless extended.” 4, The Order created a Division designated as “Division W" to “address backlogged foreclosure actions filed in the First Judicial Circuit.” The Order does not define “backlogged foreclosure actions.”5. According to the Order, “with the exception of cases in which the Motion for ‘Summary Judgment hearing of @ final hearing has been scheduled, foreclosure actions filed on or before December 31, 2009, shall be reassigned to Division “W” as of the effective date of this order.” According to the Order, “the creation of a Division “W” in each county creates the needs for judicial assignments. The judicial assignments for the First Judicial Circuit are as follows: Escambia County Division “W” - _ Senior Judge John Parnham Okaloosa County Division “W" — - Senior Judge A. Keith Brace Santa Rosa County Division “W" - Senior Judge John Parnhem ‘Walton County Division “W" - Senior Judge A. Keith Brace. 7. Under the apparent auspices of this Order, the instant action was transferred to Senior Judge A. Keith Brace on an unspecified date. 8. Upon information and belief, the Division “W” created by the Order was not established through local rules approved by the Florida Supreme Court. In Physicians Healthcare Plans, Inc. v. Pfeifler, 848 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla. 2003), the Florida Supreme Court, citing Article V, § 7, Fla. Const; § 43.30, Fla, Stat., confirmed that “divisions of Florida courts are to be established through local rules approved by this Court.” 9, The Court held that “if the senior judge docket is deemed a ‘division’ it would need to be created by local rule and approved by this Court.” Id,10. The assignment of this matter to a senior judge violated the Florida Supreme Court’s general guidelines and procedures for the assignment of seniot judges and the Florida Constitution for several reasons. 11, First of all, since Division “W” was not established through local rules approved by the Florida Supreme Court, the Order is invalid and this case was not properly assigned to Senior Judge A. Keith Brace. Therefore, it must be transferred or returned to Circuit Court Judge W. Howard LaPorte. 12. Secondly, the use of a Senior Iudge in this matter violates the Defendants’ suffrage rights under Art. V, § 10(b) Fla. Const. The Defendants are being deprived of the right to have their case tried by judges who ate accountable to the public because senior judges are not elected to judicial office. 13. Thirdly, the use of senior judges in the First Judicial Cireuit in Division “W" constitutes an improper permanent assignment, which violates the Florida Supreme Court's chief {justice's constitutional authority to assign retired judges to “temporary duty.” Art. V, § 2(b), Fla. Const. The effective date of the Order “is July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, unless extended.” 14, The intent of the order appears to be to address backlogged foreclosure actions. Backlogged foreclosure actions are not defined in the Order, and the term is susceptible to unlimited interpretations, and it could take years, if not decades to address backlogged foreclosures. 15. According to the September 1, 2010 edition of The Florida Bar News, there are apptoximately 12,960 “backlogged” foreclosures in the First Judicial Circuit, and $59,945 statewide, Based on recent reports, there is no indication this will slow down, but will in all likelihood increase. The foreclosures could be “backlogged” for several reasons including thelenders” inability to properly locate and authenticate the proper documents to prove their case, the use of mill foreclosure law firms all over the State which routinely ignore the applicable rules of procedure, the lack of the ability to enable borrowers to effectively communicate with their lenders to reach reasonable solutions instead of foreclosure, the lenders’ lack of desire and financial ability to owning even more property they would acquire at foreclosure, the rampant transfer and sales of securitized mortgages, the complete breakdown in the management of the foreclosure process by lenders and their mill law firms, the extensive fraud that existed in the mortgage industry over the past several years, the current economic recession, the oil spill catastrophe, the decreased revenue available to fund the courts, the recent increase in bankruptey filings which results in stays of foreclosure cases, and other possible factors. 16. _Tust because there are factors which have caused some sort of “backlog” does not ‘mean, all rules should be thrown to the wind so these cases can be moved through the system in this manner. 17. Based on the numbers from The Florida Bar News, assuming the First Judicial Circuit was able to hear and address 1,000 foreclosures in one year, it would still take twelve ‘years to address the current backlog, not taking into account future filings. While the current appointment is a year, unless extended, it is reasonable to presume the extension could go on for years as the Florida real estate market continues to implode. Who decides ‘when the backlog is, over? Who decides when to extend the assignments? This is anything but temporary. 18. Fourthly, the senior judge docket created by the Order is a de facto complex case division which cannot be established by administrative order, but must be established by local rule approved by the Florida Supreme Court. The Order itself recognizes the “unique challengespresented by foreclosure cases.” Order, paragraph 8. It is indisputable that real estate foreclosure actions involve complex issues of law and fact. 19. This Court should heed the words of Chief Justice Lewis in his concurrence and dissent in Physicians Healthcare Plans, Inc. v. Pfeifler, 848 So.2d 1129, 1141 (Fla. 2003) where he wrote that in that case there was no “corresponding emergency, such as a violation of the ‘speedy trial rules, to justify consistent reassignment of these cases. Indeed, the only justification offered is the mantra of judicial efficiency, which, however noble, cannot create its own constitutional foundation that so clearly violates constitutional strictures.” (emphasis supplied). 20. As Chief Justice Lewis so eloquently wrote, “we cannot allow the goal of judicial eMficiency, however laudable it may be, to trammel clear and direct constitutional directive.” Id. 21. Just because there appears to be a “backlog of foreclosure actions” due to the collapse of the national real estate market and other factors outside the control of the Defendants, it does not mean the Defendants’ due process and constitutional rights should be disregarded in this manner, WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendants respectfully request this ‘Court to transfer this action to Circuit Court Judge W. Howard LaPorte. Respectfully submitted this 3“ day of September, 20) Daniel W. Ubifelder Florida Bar No. 133922 Daniel W. Ubifelder, P.A. 124 East County Highway 30A Grayion Beach, FL 32459 (850) 534-0246 (850) 534-0985 (facsimile)Attomey for Defendants FRANK C. ZONDLO and LUZ ZONDLO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been furnished via email and USS. first-class mail to Karl A. Sandell, Esq, and Linda Hoffman, Esq., Carver Darden, 801 West Romana Street, Ste A, Pensacola, FL 32502 and James C. Barth, P.O. Box 6966, Miramar Beach, FL 32550 on this 3" day of SeptIN THE COURTS OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2010-32 INRE: _ Foreclosure Foreclosure and Economic Recovery Program; (Creation of Division *W” ORDER WHEREAS, the Legislature, pursuant to a recommendation from the Supreme Court of Florida, recognizes the need to address the backlog of foreclosure actions across the State and hhas established the Foreclosure and Economic Recovery Program for statewide implementation; and WHEREAS, the First Judicial Circuit qualifies for funding under the Foreclosure and Economic Recovery Program due to & backlog of foreclosure actions; itis, ORDERED that: 1. Teach county within the First Judicial Cireuit a Division will be created to address backlogged foreclosure actions filed in the First Judicial Cireuit. 2. The division created in each county to address those foreclosure actions as identified in this order shall be designated “Division W." 3. With the exception of cases in which the Motion for Summary Judgment hearing ora final hearing has been scheduled, foreclosure actions filed on or beforeDecember 31, 2009, shall be reassigned to Division “W" as of the effective date of this order. 4, The Clerk in each county shall propose a procedural mechanism for reassigning qualified foreclosure cases to Division *W" and shall obtain approval from the Chief Judge for implementation of that procedural mechanism. The Clerks in the First Judicial Cireuit shall create the reassignment mechanism with the understanding that should funding for the Foreclosure and Economile Recovery Program cease, the cases reassigned under this order shall, under a subsequent order, be reassigned consistent with then existing civil division structure. 5. The creation ofa Division “W" in each county creates the need for judicial assignments. The judicial assignments for the First Judicial Circuit are as follows: Escambia County Division“W" - —_—_ Senior Judge John Parnham ‘Okaloosa County Division *W" - Senior Judge A. Keith Brace ‘Santa Rosa County Division “W* - Senior Judge John Parmham ‘Walton County Division *W" = Senior Judge A. Keith Brace 6. Court Administration of the First Judicial Circuit shall employ a half time case manager (supported by other court administration staff) for services to both Escambia and Santa Rosa counties and one full-time case manager for services to both Okaloosa and Walton counties. Every effort shall be expended to facilitate cireuit-wide bost practices, uniformity, communication, and coordination of case ‘management services to Division “W", 7. This order does not amend, vacate or supersede the content and/or directives in either First Judicial Circuit Administrative Orders 2009-18 or 2010-01.10. ML. 13. ‘The judges assigned to Division “W" shall have full authority as permitted by law to adopt case management orders and case menagement techniques to facilitate uniformity and coordination of processes across the First Judicial Circuit to avoid scheduling conflicts. That authority shall extend to other issues expected because of the unique challenges presented by foreclosure cases to include scheduling of ceases handled by the large law firms which predominantly represent Plaintiffs in foreclosure actions. Personal appearance by Plaintiff's attomey (or local counsel retsined by plaintiff's attomey to appear) is required. Urgent motions and proposed orders must be hand delivered to the assigned Division “W” judge, if available, or the duty judge for signature when requesting cancellation of sales. The Clerk is not required to deliver to the division judge “urgent” or “emergency” motions when plaintiff is tequesting the cancellation of @ sale. The Clerk has authority to cancel sales upon a defendant fing a copy of a Notice of Bankruptey in the foreclosure action in which the sale is scheduled. Payment of the required $70.00 Foreclosure Sale Fee is required to be made at the time the Final Judgment of Foreclosure is submitted to the court for signature. ‘The Clerk will hold the funds until the day prior to the sale, Compliance with a completed checklist is required prior to setting any Final Heasing before the Court. ‘The Division ‘“W" judge will hear any motions involving lack of prosecution in all ‘qualifying foreclosure cases filed prior to December 31, 2009.14, The effective date of this order is July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2911, unless extended. DONE AND ORDERED in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida this 30" day of June, 2010. CHIEF JODGE Copies furnished to: Honorable A. Keith Brace, Senior Judge Honorable John Parham, Senior Judge All Judges, First Judicial Circuit All Clerks, First Judicial Circuit Robin Wright, Trial Court Administrator Escambia/Sants Rosa Bar Association, for publication (Okaloosa/Walton Bar Association, for publication Craig VanBrussel, CTO, First Judicial Circuit WebsiteFIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, PLAINTIFF, FORECLOSURE CHECKLIST FOR FINAL HEARING ‘CASENUMBER: ‘Placer the docket ey # (DE if tnowa: teri, se dt for esto. COUNTY, FLORIDA ANSWER, DEFAULT OR" DEFENDANT) SNF ey [RERUN OF PERRET OR, | BRST op seavicerien |SURIGHUOY | PRONEROR eae eae ire eee rs th eS Se ee ae carne Pena oa een eee cee el ee en pono a ete peer ——_AFmpavits So ae So a eoee ae fa ce eo ae. ie Arrangemenc with ellen) |,.uhe undersigned, certify chat Uhave reviewed the le and verified the information provide herein tobe true a ‘Signature of Attorney Yor Pint Dave Signea Printed Name of AtoraeyWestlaw. 846 So.24 1129, 28 Fla, L, Weekly $370 (Gite as: 846 $0.24 1129) c Supreme Court of Florida, PHYSICIANS HEALTHCARE PLANS, INC,, et al, Petitioners, ‘Raymond PFEIFLER, et ux, Respondents ‘Kurshid Kahn, M.D,, eta, Petitioners, Raymond Pfeifer, et ux, Respondents. ‘Nos. SCO}-2062, SC01-2079. May 1, 2003, Medical malpractice action was brought and set for tial on the senior judges’ docket in the circuit court. Defendant physicians filed motion to return the case ta the elected circuit judge. The Circuit Cour, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, deaied motion. Defeadant physicians then petitioned for wnt of ptohibigon. ‘The Supreme Court helé that: (1) ap- pointment of nonclested judges as senior judges did ot violate suffage sights, (2) use of senior judge docket amounted to & proper “temporary assign ‘ment; GB) use of senior judges 10 reheve over crowding of dockets did not constitute a “division” that had to be ereated by local rule and approved by the Supreme Court; and (4) eligibility for temporary appointment as retired judge was not restricted 10 ‘only those judges who reached retirement age. Petition denied. ‘Wells J. filed concurring opinion. Lewis, J, filed opinion concurring in part and dis- senting in par. Pariente and Quince, 11, concurred in result oaly. West Headnotes {81 Courts 106 €472.2 106 Courts Page 2 of 14 Page 1 106VI1 Concurrent and Conflicting Jurisdiction 106V(A) Courts of Same State 106VTI(A)1 In General 106k#72. Exclusive or Concurrent Jur isdiction 1064722 Appellate or Supreme Courts. Most Cited Cases ‘The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to re- view judicial assignment. Wests FS.A. Const An. 5,§ 2,6). Dj Courrs 10670 106 Courts 10611 Establishment, Organization, and Proced- ure 10611(E) Places and Times of Holding Court 1O6K70 k. Designation or Assignment of udges, Most Cited Cases ‘When 2 chief judge of a judicial circuit exercises his or her delegated assignment authority, the judge is acting under the Chief Justice's constitutional power to make temporary judicial assignments to ensure the speedy, efficient, and proper administra- tion of justice within the ‘various circuits, West's RSA. Const. Art. 5, § 2(a, b); West's FS.A. Rud Admin.Rule 2.050(6)(4), [3] Courts 106 €=472.2 106 Courts 106V1 Concurrent and Conflicting Jurisdiction 1O6VII(A) Courts of Same State 1O6VII(A)1 In General 106k472 Exclusive of Concurrent Jur- isdiction 196k4722 K. Appellate or Supreme Courts. Most Cited Cases Because of the vital role temporary judicial assign- ‘ments play in the administration of the state court system, the Supreme Court must have exclusive jur- isdiction to review such assignments under its con- sttucional authority to oversee the administrative supervision of all courts, West FSA. Const. Art © 2010 Thorson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works, http://web2. westlaw.com/print/printstream aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&fn=_top&mt=24. 9/3/2010846 So.2d 1129, 28 Fla, L. Weekly $370 (Cite as: 846 $0.24 1129) 5, § 2); Wests FSA, Ried Admin-Rule 2.0500.) [4] Prohibition 314 17 314 Prohibition BAIT Procedure “314KL7 k. Presentation of Objections in Ori- ‘inal Proceeding. Most Cited Cases ‘Tae Supreme Court should not address by wrt of prohibition issues relating 10 judicial assignments that have not been raised tothe trial court. [5] Courts 106 €70 106 Cours 1061 Establishment, Organization, and Proced- 10611(E) Places and Times of Holding Court 106470 k. Designation or Assigument of Judges. Most Cited Cases ‘Constitutional provision specifically granting the Chief Justice power to assign retired justices or judges to temporary duty in any court for which they were qualified, together with the authority to delegate this power to the chief judge of a judicial circuit, permitted appointment of —nonelected judges, and thus such appointment was not @ viola- tion of suffrage rights. West's FS.A. Const. Art. 5, §6 2), 1000). [6] Constitutional Law 92 €=602 92 Constitutional Law 92V Construction and Operation of Constina- tional Provisions S2V(A) General Rules of Construction 92K395 Invinsic Aids to Construction 92k602 K. In Pari Materia. Most Cited Cases (Fonmerly 92k15) Constitutional provisions must be read in pari ma- feria to form a congruous whole so as not to render any language superfiuous, IT) Courts 106 €>70 Page 3 of 14 Page 2 106 Courts 106IT Eetsbliskment, Organization, and Proced- 1O6II(E) Places and Times of Holding Court 106K70 Kk. Designation or Assignment of Judges, Most Cited Cases, Use of senior judge docket in one circuit amounted fo a “temporary assignment,” and not en improper ‘permanent assignment in violation of Chief Justice's constitutional auwhorty. to assign retired jndges to temporary duty, evea if some senior judge assignments were successive, where assignment re- ‘cords and docket records indicated that cases were ‘assigned to senior judges primasily to relieve over- ‘crowded and backlogged calendars in both the civil ‘and criminal court dockets or because a case was likely to be one of long duration, and not all long- uration trials were transferred 10 senior judge docket, West's FS.A. Const. Art. 5, § 2(b); West's FSA, RJud.Admin Rule 2.050(6)(4). [8] Courts 106 €=70 106 Courts OGL Establishment, Organization, and Proced- 10611) Places and Times of Holding Court 106K70 k. Designation or Assigament of Judges. Most Cited Cases ‘A. county judge cannot be assigned to perform solely cirouit court work, and vice versa, unless the assignment is for a relatively short time. West's FSA. Const. Ast. 5. § 2(by; Wests FSA. Jud Admin Rule 2.050(6)4). (1 Courts 196 70 306 Courts 10611 Establishment, Organization, and Proced- 106TH) Phaces end Times of Holding Court 106K70 Kk. Designation or Assignment of Judges. Most Cited Cases ‘A judge may be assigned to hear other court work ‘on a temporary, regular basis as long as the assign- ‘ment is directed (0 a specified class of cases, is © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. hitp://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv~Split&prft-HTMLE&fn=_top&mt=24... 9/3/2010846 So.2d 1129, 28 Fia.L. Weekly S370 (Cite as: 846 $0.24 1129) weed (© maximize the efficient administration of justice, and supplements and wssiss the judges in the other court rather than replaces them. West's FSA. Const, Art. 5, § 2b) Wests FS.A. RJud Admin Rule 2.050(6)(4). [10} Courts 106 70 106 Courts 10st Establishment, Organization, and Proced- 1O6II¢E) Places and Times of Holding Court 106470 k. Designation or Assignment of Judges. Most Cited Cases In determining whether a judicial assignment is a “temporary assignment,” the Supreme Court con- siders more than the dation of the individuah33- Signment, the suovessive nature of the assignment, the type of ese covered by the assignment, nd the practical effect of the assignment on the coun's ju {sdiction over a particular type of case also must be considered, Wests FSA, Rud Admin Rule 2.050004), {11} Courts 106 70 106 Courts 1OGIT Establishment, Organization, and Proced- $061} Places and Times of Holding Court 106K70 k. Designation or Assigument of Iudges. Most Cited Cases ‘Suotessive and repetitive judicial assignments of rnonelected judges, which might be valid if con- sidered individually, are not temporary where the practical effect i to create a de facto permanent cis- ‘cuit judge by administrative order. Wests F-S.A. RJud.Admin Rule 2.050(0)(4). [12] Courts 196 €=58 106 Courts 1O6I Establishment, Organization, and Proced- we 106II(A) Creation and Constitution 106k50 k. Divisions and Parts of Courts. Page 4 of 14 Page3 Most Cited Cases Courts 196 £70 106 Cours 106IT Establishmest, Organization, and Proced- 1061 Places and Times of Holding Court 106470 . Designation of Assignment of Judges, Most Cited Cases Use of senior judges to relieve overcrowding of the civil and criminal dookets in a judicial circuit by a8- signing them to cases af long duration did not con- stitute « complex case “division that had to be exe- sted by local rule and approved by the Supreme Court, but could be created by administrative order of the chief judge of the circuit court. Weats FS.A. Const. Ar. 5, § 7; Wests FSA. € 43.30; Wests FS.A, RJud Admin Rule 2.050, 113] Courts 106 50 106 Courts 106It Establishment, Organization, and Proced- 10611(A) Creation and Constitution 106450 k. Divisions and Parts of Courts, Most Cited Cases A special court division may not be crested by ‘means of the temporary appointment power of the Chief Justice which is delegated to the chief judges of the circuit cous, West's F.S.A. Const, Art. 5, §§ 20,7. [14] Courts 106 81 106 Cours 10611 Establishment, Organization, and Proced- 1O6II(F) Rules of Court and Conduct of Business 106K81 \. Making and Promulgation of Rules. Most Cited Cases ‘Unlike local court rules, administrative orders of chief judge of judicial circuit generally do not hhave to be approved by the Supreme Court. Wests (©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works, ‘tp: //web2.westlaw.com/prinUprintstream.aspx?sv-Sphitdeprit-H1TMLESfa=_topSmt=24.,. 9/3/2010£846 So.2d 1129, 28 Fla. L. Weeldy $370 (Cite as: 846 0.20 1129) F.S.A. Const. At 5, § 7; West's FS.A. § 43.30; West's FS.A. RJud.Admin Rule 2.050, [15] Judges 227 €16(2) 227 Judges 22TH Special or Substitute Judges 227K16 Appointment, Qualification, and Tenure 227K16(2) k. Qualification. Most Cited Cases ‘A. senior judge may be assigned temporarily to serve in a circuit other than the one in which he or she resides. Wests F.S.A. Const. Art. 5, §8. [16] Judges 227 €=>160) 227 Judges 227K Special or Substiute Judges 227k16 Appointment, Qualification, and Tenure 27K16@2) k. Qualification. Most Cited Cases ‘The accountebilty for senior judges rests with the Chief Justice rather than the voters of a particular circuit or distit; because the. Chief Justice's au- thority and responsibilty extend throughout the state, the Chief Justice can assign a senior judge to duty’ without limitation 10 the jurisdiction of the senior judge's prior service. Wests F.S.A. Const. An 5,§8. 1171 Courts 106 €=>70 106 Courts 10611 Establishment, Organization, and Proced- 10611(E) Places and Times of Holding Court 106470 k. Designation of Assignment of Iudges. Most Cited Cases ‘As the administrative officer of sll courts within = judicial circuit, the chief judge is best equipped to assess the needs of each irial court and to allocate the judicial Inbor available within the circuit ac- cordingly. Wests FSA, RuJjudAdminRule 2.050(63) Page 5 of 14 Page 4 [18] Judges 227 21602) 221 Judges 227K Special or Substitute Judges 227K16 Appointment, Qualification, and Tenure TATEAS2) k, Qualification. Most Cited Cases Eligibility for temporary appoinunent as a “retired judge” was oot restricted (0 only thse judges who reached retirement age, Wests F'S.A. Const. Art. 5, § 2(b); West's F.S.A. § 25.073(1); West's F.S.A. Rjud Admin Rule 2.030(0)3)(@). {19] Judges 227 €=>16@2) 227 Fades 27 Special or Substitute Judges 227K16 Appointment, Qualification, and Tenure 227K16(2) k. Qualification, Most Cited Cases Under both the Rules of Judicial Administration and statutory definition of a reticed judge, there are only two restrictions on the eligibility of retired judges who may be assigned to temporary judicial uty: they may not be engaged in the practice of law; and they may not have been defested for reelection or retention in their last judicial office. West's F.S.A. Const. Ant. 5, § 2(0); West's ES.A. § 250731; Wests FSA RJudAdminRule 2.030(a)(3)(B), [20] Judges 227 €=>15(1) 227 iudges ‘227M Special or Substitute Judges 22TKIS Necessity and Grounds for Appoint. reat 227K 5(1)k. In General, Most Cited Cases ‘The express language of the constitutional provi- sion that gives the Chief Justice the power to ap- point temporary judges does not restict the power fo emergencies. Wests FS.A. Const. Art 5, § 2(0). #1131 Louise H. MeMurrsy and Douglas M. Mein- © 2010 Thomson Reuters, No Clsim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft-HTMLEfn=_top&mt=24... 9/3/2010846 0.24 1129, 28 Fla. L, Weekly $370 (Cite as: 846 $0.24 1129) tosh of Melatosh, Sawran, Peltz é& Cartays, Miami, FL, on bebalf of Physicians Healthcare Plans, In “Bryant Blevins of Marlow, Connell, Valerius, Abrams, Adler & Newman, Miami, FL, on behalf ‘of Ronald S. Gup, M.A., et; Kevin P, O'Connor of O'Connor, Chimpouls, Restani, Merreo & McAl- lister, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, on behalf of Ralph Groenwasser, Jr, D.O. and Nancy W. Gregoire and Michael J. Rotundo of Bunnell, Woulfe, Kirschbaum, Keller, Meintyre & Gregoire, P. For Lauderdale, FL, on bebalf of Khurshid Khan, MD., etal, Petitioners. Gary M. Farmer, Jr. of Gillespie, Goldman, Kron- engold & Farmer, P.A., Fort *1132 Lauderdale, FL; Charles J. Crist, Jr, Attomey General, and Charles ‘M, Fahibusch, Assistant Attomey General, Fort Lauderdale, FL; and Michael S. Freedland of The Law Offices of Freedland & Glassmen, Weston, FFL, for Respondents PER CURIAM. Physicians Healthcare Plans, Inc, Dr. Kurshid Kaim, and others petition this Court for a writ of prohibition. We have jurisdiction, See art. V, § 3(b)(7), Fla, Const. ‘The instant case arose ftom 1998 medical mal- practice action by Raymond and Cynthis Peifler against. Physicians Healthcare Plans, Tne ‘Physicians), Dr. Kurshid Kahn (Kah), and others, which was Set fr trial on the senior judges’ docket in the Seventeenth Judiciel Cireuit. In July 2000, the codefendanis filed a motion in cnet cout to rerar the case to the elected circuit judge, arpuing that the assigument to a senior judge violated both this Courts general guidelines and procedures for the assignment of senior judges and the Florida Constition. The cireuit court heard argument in November 2000, deaied the motion, but certified the issue as being of great public importance and invited the codefendants to seek a writ of proibi- tion to resolve the issues presented Page 6 of 14 Page Petitioners Physicians and Kahin have filed two sep- arate petitions for writs of prohibition with this Cour. Both petitions raise » tawmber of challenges to the sei judges’ docket in the Seventeenth Indi- cial Circuit and ask this Court to prohibit the as- ment of senior judges to preside over “long ti- al” medical malpractice and other “complex itiga- ‘ion” cases.™ We have consolidated the cases as they present the same issues for the Court's resolu tion, FNL. In our recent review of the Report and “Recommendations of the Committee On Appointment and Assignment of Senior Judges, “we acknowledge [the realty of ‘problems in. isolated cases with senior Judges presiding over complex and lengthy trials” and urged chief judges “to respond directly to concems expressed when. such problems are presented to them” In re Re- port & Recommendations of the Comm. on Appointment & Assignment of Senior Judges, "op. at 15, 847 802d 415, 422, 2003 WL 1987980 (Fla. May 1, 2003) Despite such problems, we declined to ad- opt “either a per se prohibition on the as- signment of senior judges to complex cases or requirement that chief judges be re- quired 19 show @ good cause for such as- signments” recognizing that “[ehhief judges must be afforded deference and lat ide in the management of judicial assign- ments and dockets.” 1d. x 15-16, at 422 Finally, we seminded the chief judges of their duty to “select senior judges with the proper skills and experience to preside ‘over complex. cases when such assign- ments are necessary” and their responsibil ity to “pecidically review{ ] the progress of all cases assigned to senior jadges 10 en. sure expeditious and proper handling.” 1d at 16, a¢ 422 Before considering the challenges raised in the peti- tions, we find it necessary to explain the back- © 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. bittp:/web2. westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft-HTMLE&th= topSmt=24. 9/3/2010{846 So.2d 1129, 28 Fla, L. Weekly $370 (Cite as: 846 $0.24 1129) ground relating to the assignment of senior judges. For the purposes of judicial administration, a “retired judge” is defined as a judge not engaged in the prastice of law who has been a judicial officer Of this state. See Fis, R. Jud. Admin. 2.030(a)(3)(B) Section 25.073(1), Florida Stastes (2001), also ‘specifies that a retired judge may not have been ée- feated in seeking reelection or retention to his or her last judicial office. In 1990, Florida Rule of Ju- dicial Administration 2.030(a)(3) was amended to provide that a retired judge serving on sssignment 4 temporary judicial duty may be referred to by the honorary Gesignation “senior judge.” This designe tion had no effect on the responsibilities or conduct of the retired judge. See In re Amendment 19 Rules of Judicial Admin, 560 So.24 786, 787 (Fla.1990). #1133 [1][213] This Court has exclusive jurisdic- tion to review judicial assignments based upon art ile V, section 2(¢)(b) of the Florida Constitution. Article ¥, section 2(a) gives this Court authority to adopt rules for the adsinistrative supervision of all courts, Article V, section 2(b) gives the chief Justice of this Cour, as the chief administrative of- ficer of the judicial system, “the power to justices or judges, including consenting retired justices or jadges, to temporary duty in any court for which the judge is qualified and to delegate to a chief judge of a judicial cireuit the power (0 assign judges for doty in that circuit” Florida Rule of Ju- dicial Administration 2.050(bi(4) delegates the chief justice's assignment power to the chief judges of the judicial circuits to “assign any judge to tem- porary service for which the judge is qualified in ‘ny court in the same circuit.” “When a chief judge exercises this delegated assignment authority, the judge is acting under the Chief Justice's constitu- tional power te make temporary judicial assign- ments to ensure the speedy, efficient, and proper administration of justice within the various cir- cuits.” Wild v. Dozier, 672 $0.24 16, 18 (Fla.1996). Because of the vital role temporary judicial assign- ‘meats play in the administration of our court sys- tem, this Court must have exclusive jurisdiction to review such assignments under its article V, section Page 7 of 14 Page6 2(a) authority to oversee the administrative supervi- sion ofall courts. See id This Court has long recognized the necessity of as- signing retired judges and justices to judicial ser- vice in Florida courts, Sec In re Assignmenss of Justices & Judges, 222 $0.24 22 (Fa.1968). As we Jhave explained, “unless retired justices and judges are assigned t0 .. other courts, long delays in the discharge of case loads of some of the trial courts wil result” 2d. at 23, ‘Thus, retired judges ave provided valuable service to Floride's judicial sys- fem for many years by assisting with increased caseloads and providing relief to active judges when they aro ill or disqualified. See in re Rules Governing Assignment to Duty of Retired Justices & Judges, 239 80.24 254 (Fin. 1970), “Were it not for the availabilty of this resource, the delays in scheduling hearings and wials ... would be much greater” In re Cerification of Judicial Manpower, 592 So.2d 241, 246 (Fla.1992). Furthermore, “[tJhe use of retied judges is the most cost effective and flexible program we have to address calendaring problems and emergencies as they arise." In re Cer- ‘ification of Judicial Manpower, $76 $0.24 1303, 1307 (Fla.1991). We have repeatedly noted that the secvices of retired judges “are availzble at much Jess expense than full-time judges.” In re Certfica- tion of Need for Additional Judges, 669 $0.24 1037, 1039 (Fla. 1996), Senior judges curently perform the work of approximately thiny-five full-time Judges, ata cost of about $2.9 million, a small frac- tion of the cost of that number of full-time judges. See Comm. On Appointment and Assignment of Senior Judges, Report and Recommendations of the Commitee On Appointment and Assignment of Senior Judges, 4 (Feb. 22, 2002) (on file with ‘Clerk, Fa, Sup. Ct). [4] Ie is against this background that we address the ‘pittioners’ challenges to the assignment of senior Judges. The petitioners claim that the use of seaior judges violates the suffrage rights of voters; the as- signment of cases to the senior judges’ docket in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit constitutes an improp- ©2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. ‘http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream. aspx?sv=Split&prt-HTMLE&fn=_top&mt=24... 93/2010