IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FLORIDA – FAMILY LAW DIVISION

_________________________________

In Re: The Marriage of:

GABRIEL CARL SHAPIRO
Petitioner/Former Husband,
Case No: 2019-DR-009867 FC 01 PJ
and

PATSY EVELYN ALCANTAR SAUCEDO,

Respondent/ Former Wife,

VERIFIED (AMENDED) MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION

COMES NOW, the Limited Counsel for Petitioner/Former Husband, LESLIE ANN

FERDERIGOS, ESQ, acting as Limited Counsel for GABRIEL SHAPIRO, files this

VERIFIED (AMENDED) MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION pursuant to Rule

2.330/ 2.160(d)(1) as follows:

1. On August 20, 2021, this Court held a hearing on the Former Husband’s

Exceptions to Magistrate.

2. On (08/16/2021), Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. filed her Notice of Limited Appearance

to represent the Former Husband for the Exceptions to Magistrate issue.

3. Prior to Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. representing the Former Husband in a Limited

Capacity, she serves as counsel of record from March 11, 2021 until August 10,

2021. However, on August 10, 2021, at the conclusion of representation, this

Court issued an Order granting substitution of counsel, but reserved on any right

for the court to impose sanctions against Leslie Ann Ferderigos, Esq on any filing

she provided during her representation of the case, which encompasses all filings

1
 for (6) months of representation. Furthermore, prior to the hearing held on

August 20, 2021, the Former Husband indicated his desire to retain Leslie Ann

Ferderigos, Esq. for limited appearances on the issue of frivolous litigation that

is set in October 2021. Thus, Leslie Ann Ferderigos, Esq. will have continued

future appearances in this case.

4. FORMER HUSBAND TOOK ACTION IN RESULT OF THIS COURT’S TREATMENT OF MS.

FERDERIGOS AND HIS FEAR OF NOT RECEIVING IMPARTIALITY BY THIS COURT: Prior

to substituting new counsel, Catherine Rodriguez, Esq., the Former Husband

stated to Ms. Ferderigos that he had to find new counsel because he felt that

Judge Cuestas did not like Ms. Ferderigos. Thus, it would prejudice his case by

not allowing him impartiality of the Court. Ms. Ferderigos is an out of county

attorney, who has an office in Orange County, Florida and not a local Miami-

Dade county attorney.

5. THIS COURT ALLOWED FORMER WIFE’S COUNSEL, DORI FOSTER-MORALES, ESQ. TO

BERATE AND BELITTLE MS. FERDERIGOS IN OPEN COURT AND IN THE PRESENCE OF

HER CLIENT: During previous hearings, Judge Cuestas had allowed Counsel for

the Former Wife, Dori Foster-Morales, Esq. to belittle Ms. Ferderigos in open

court, by claiming Ms. Ferderigos had directed her client to commit a felony,

that Ms. Ferderigos initiated a plan to involve the media, Michael Volpe, to

harass adversarial parties and the Court, that Ms. Ferderigos was responsible for

settlements not taking place and that Ms. Ferderigos was responsible for the

large amount of filings in this case, among many other condescending and

disrespectful statements targeted at Ms. Ferderigos – all which is false. At no

2
 time, did the Court request for Ms. Foster-Morales to limit or cease these

condescending comments about Ms. Ferderigos in the presence of her client in

open court. When Ms. Ferderigos would try to defend herself against these false

allegations, the Court would cut her off by stating “stick the issue before the

Court.” Ms. Foster-Morales continuously made belittling statements in open

court over several months, to create a false narrative about Ms. Ferderigos to this

Court and it is believed that the Court’s opinion of Ms. Ferderigos has become

bias in a manner that it has affected his case and will continue to affect her clients

ability to receive impartiality by this Court. [Transcripts can be provided]

6. THE COURT ENGAGED IN A SERIES OF STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS ON AUGUST 20,

2021, MEANT TO BERATE AND HUMILIATE MS. FERDERIGOS IN OPEN COURT AND IN

FRONT OF HER CLIENT: Most recently, during a hearing held on August 20, 2021,

Judge Cuestas made a series of statements directed at Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. that

were intended to humiliate her. These include:

A. PROLONGED INTERROGATION OF MS. FERDERIGOS’ CITATIONS AND

EQUATING THAT A LAW STUDENT COULD DO BETTER AT CITATIONS

THEN MS. FERDERIGOS: Prolonged reprimanding of Leslie

Ferderigos, Esq. on her citations in her memorandum of law,

including making the statement that even a “law student would

know how to properly cite citations”. This was stated in the

presence of her client. Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. explained to the

Court that she literally copied the citations from a Florida Bar

Document in Westlaw, as well as, relied on Westlaw’s citation

3
 references. Thus, Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. disagreed that the citations

were incorrect. Despite, Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. explanation, the

Court continued to reprimand her for her citations in front of her

client and told Ms. Ferderigos, that the cases she referred to in her

memorandum of law was not law. Thus, making Ms. Ferderigos

look incompetent in the presence of her client. Leslie Ferderigos,

Esq. in good faith believes the intentions of the Court’s prolonged

nature of the interrogation and reprimand over citations, along

with accusing Ms. Ferderigos of not providing law to the Court

was meant to humiliate Ms. Ferderigos, in front of her client to

make her look incompetent. [A Copy of the Memorandum with

the cases cited and the transcripts to validate this can be produced

upon request]

B. THE COURT IMPEDED MS. FERDERIGOS’ ABILITY TO REPRESENT HER

CLIENT BY ORDERING MS. FERDERIGOS TO NOT SPEAK ON HER

CLIENT’S BEHALF DURING THE AUGUST 20, 2021 HEARING: During

the hearing, the Former Husband requested to clarify something to

the Court. While her client was speaking, Leslie Ferderigos, Esq.

interrupted him to speak on his behalf in an effort to state

something for the record and prevent her client from saying

something that could be prejudicial to his case. However, the

Court reprimanded Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. by telling her to stop

talking because her client “Mr. Shapiro was talking….”. Again,

4
 meant to humiliate Leslie Ferderigos, Esq in front of her client.

Most concerning, is the Court impeded and interfered with Ms.

Ferderigos’ ability to represent her client by ordering Ms.

Ferderigos to not speak, but rather the client speak for himself.

[Transcripts to validate this can be produced upon request]

C. THE COURT JUSTIFIES DISRESPECTING MS. FERDERIGOS BY FALSELY

STATING MS. FERDERIGOS MISSED SEVERAL HEARINGS: After being

humiliated over the citations and requesting to speak for her client,

Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. stated “with all due respect You Honor, my

client found another attorney because he felt this Court was

prejudicing him for having an out of county attorney by the way

this Court has treated me….I feel this Court continually disrespects

me in front of my client to make me look incompetent.”

Immediately after Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. stated this, the Court

complimented Mr. Shapiro on reaching an agreement since he

hired new counsel. Thus, indirectly validating Leslie Ferderigos’

concern over the Court’s lack of impartiality and bias towards her

representation. Instead of disagreeing that the Court was not

disrespecting Ms. Ferderigos, the Court validated their intentional

disrespect towards Ms. Ferderigos, by claiming their treatment

towards Ms. Ferderigos was because she had missed several

hearings. However, Ms. Ferderigos never missed any hearings in

this case, as evidenced by the record and transcripts. Thus, the

5
 Court made false accusatory statements about Leslie Ferderigos,

Esq. missing a number of hearings in the presence of her client and

again directed at humiliating Leslie Ferderigos, Esq by making her

look irresponsible in front of her client. In response to the Court

inaccurate statements, Ms. Ferderigos requested the Court tell her

exactly which hearing they believe she missed. However, the Court

could not provide a response and facts to validate that Ms.

Ferderigos had ever missed any hearings. [Transcripts to validate

this can be produced upon request]

7. THE COURT ADVERSELY AFFECTED MS. FERDERIGOS’ CLIENT’S CASE BY DENYING

DUE PROCESS IN RESULT OF THEIR NEGATIVE VIEW OF MS. FERDERIGOS: After the

Court engaged in a series of statements to Leslie Ferderigos that were directed

at humiliating her, the Court refused to allow her a rebuttal argument, despite

the fact the Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. was the one who filed the motion being heard

before the Court. Further, Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. requested that she could make

closing statements so they could be put on the record. However, the Court

refused to allow Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. to make closing statement and abruptly

stated they had to end the hearing, despite the hearing being set for an entire

day and the parties had only been in the hearing for 2-hours.

8. On August 20, 2021, Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. was contacted by a public observer

of the hearing held that day, who was present to witness Judge Cuestas tone of

voice, demeanor, and statements directed at Ms. Ferderigos. This observer told

Ms. Ferderigos this was the worst humiliation she has even seen a Judge do

6
 against Counsel and that it was blatantly obvious that Judge Cuestas does not

like Leslie Ferderigos, Esq.

9. Additionally, Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. has a reasonable and objective fear that any

case she has where Judge Cuestas is residing will prejudice her clients. After the

hearing held on August 20, 2021 and the series of humiliating and obvious acts

by the Court towards Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. the Former Husband feels he can

never allow Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. on his case, as long as, Judge Cuestas is

involved because he will be prejudiced by her appearance. Leslie Ferderigos, Esq.

Ms. Ferderigos has the lowest hourly rate of all his counsel and now he is forced

to expend much higher attorney costs, using a local Miami-Dade Attorney.

10. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Judge refused to allow Leslie Ferderigos,

Esq. to present her entire argument nor did the Judge allow Leslie Ferderigos to

present all the case law she relied on for her argument and ruled in favor of the

Former Wife. It is believed this abrupt ruling without allowing Leslie Ferderigos

to present her entire argument was prejudicial to her client. “A trial court's

prejudice against an attorney may be grounds for disqualification when such

prejudice is of such a degree that it adversely [a]ffects the litigant.” Franco v.

State, 777 So.2d 1138, 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Gates v. State, 784 So. 2d 1235,

1237 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001). Aside from Ms. Ferderigos’ client feeling he must

use a local Miami-Dade attorney at a much higher rate, this Court has deprived

7
 Ms. Ferderigos’ client of his due process to a fair hearing.

11. In the instant case, Judge Cuestas humiliated Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. in the

presence of her client. Immediately following the hearing, Leslie Ferderigos, Esq.

felt so humiliated that she cried while trying to speak with her client. In Gate v

State, a Judge's threat to humiliate defense counsel in front of jury, particularly

coming after sidebar conference in which judge allegedly chastised defense

counsel so loudly that she could possibly be heard by jury, was sufficient to

create in defendant reasonable fear he would not receive fair trial at the hands

of the judge and provided grounds for disqualification of judge. West's F.S.A. §

38.10; Fla.Admin. Code Ann. r. 2.160(d)(1). Gates v. State, 784 So. 2d 1235 (Fla.

Dist. Ct. App. 2001) It is clear, that the Former Husband did not receive a fair

hearing. Additionally, should the Former Husband request Leslie Ferderigos, to

represent him for future hearings, it is reasonable that he would believe he would

not receive a fair and impartial hearing.

12. In the instant case, the Former Husband was denied due process of his Counsel

being able to present her entire case, including case law, rebuttal arguments,

and the abrupt termination of the hearing when the hearing was set for an entire

8
 day. A trial court's prejudice against an attorney may be grounds for

disqualification when such prejudice is of such a degree that it adversely affects

the litigant. West's F.S.A. § 38.10; Fla.Admin. Code Ann. r. 2.160(d)(1).Gates v.

State, 784 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001). Thus, the prejudice was to such

a degree that it adversely affected the Former Husband’s due process and the

outcome of his hearing.

13. Additionally, Ms. Ferderigos is filing a complaint with the JQC against Judge

Cuestas for violating several standards of conduct. If this case is investigated it

could place Ms. Ferderigos in a more vulnerable position to receive backlash

from Judge Cuestas.

14. The party moving for disqualification of judge does not need to establish that

the judge is actually biased against him or her, but the motion and affidavit are

legally sufficient if they demonstrate that party's well grounded fear of not

receiving a fair trial. West's F.S.A. § 38.10; Fla.Admin. Code Ann. r. 2.160(d)(1).

Gates v. State, 784 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001). It is clear that not only

is there concern and fear for not receiving a fair hearing, but there is actual

actions that were taken to resulted in a bias hearing. Thus, there is a well

9
 grounded fear that any future hearing that Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. might be

involved in would be prejudiced.

15. Trial judge was not entitled to adjudicate or contradict factual accuracy of

allegations in defendant's motion for disqualification, but only to consider

whether motion stated legally sufficient grounds for her disqualification. West's

F.S.A. § 38.10; Fla.Admin. Code Ann. r. 2.160(d)(1).Gates v. State, 784 So. 2d

1235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001). Thus, all allegations pled in this pleading if taken

true, warrant a disqualification of Judge Cuestas.

16. When presented with a motion for disqualification alleging a fear of prejudice

or bias under rule 2.160(d)(1), the trial judge is limited to assessing its procedural

and legal sufficiency and is not to pass upon the truth or falsity of the allegations.

Gates v. State, 784 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001). Thus, Judge

Cuestas should take the statements as true and not rule against this motion if she

is in disagreement with the allegations. In determining the legal sufficiency of

motions alleging any of these grounds, the judge to whom the allegations are

directed must determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion, not the truth

or falsity of the statements. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(f); see also In re

10
 Cohen, 99 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 2012); Taylor v. State, 557 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA

1990), disapproved on other grounds, 687 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1996); Deren v.

Williams, 521 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (cited in Hurley & Antoon,

“Disqualification of a Judge,” Ethics Outside the Courtroom (Florida Judiciary

Education 1996)); Tower Group, Inc. v. Doral Enterprises Joint Ventures, 760

So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Kielbania v. Jasberg, 744 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th

DCA 1997); Leveritt & Associates, P.A. v. Williamson, 698 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d

DCA 1997); Nathanson v. Nathanson, 693 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

17. Not only must the judge determine only the legal sufficiency of the motions,

but the judge must do so quickly. According to rule 2.330(f), the decision

regarding legal sufficiency must be made immediately. In fact, in response to

Tableau Fine Art Group, Inc. v. Jacoboni, 853 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2003), the

supreme court added subdivision (j) to rule 2.330 (then 2.160), which provides

that the judge must rule on the motion to disqualify within 30 days of service of

the motion on the judge. Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration

2.160, 885 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2004).

11
18. The duty of the court is to ascertain whether the facts as alleged in the motion

would cause a reasonably prudent person to fear not receiving a fair

trial. Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983). v. State, 784 So. 2d 1235,

1237 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)It is clear that the alleged facts would cause a

reasonably prudent person to fear not receiving a fair trial

19. Personal bias or prejudice towards counsel is an ethical basis for disqualification

under Canon 3E(1)(a). The terms “personal bias” or “prejudice” relate to

allegations of a judge’s particularized ill will or animosity toward a specific

person in a case. These terms are not synonymous with racial, ethnic, or other

status-based bias or prejudice, which is the subject of Canon 3B(5). Legal and

ethical requirements overlap. Not only does Canon 3E(1)(a) mandate judicial

disqualification when the judge holds a personal bias or prejudice against a party

or counsel, but section 38.10, Florida Statutes, states that a party may move for

disqualification of a judge when the party fears an unfair trial because the judge

personally dislikes the party or favors the party’s opponent. See, e.g., Robbins

v. Robbins, 742 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (judge should have recused

because of personal friendship with one spouse in divorce proceeding); Opinion

12
 99-02 (committee advised judge to recuse when dating one of attorneys in case

assigned to that judge). See Olszewska v. Ferro, 590 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)

(finding sufficient grounds for disqualification when judge “leaves the realm of

civility and directs base vernacular towards an attorney or litigant in open

court”).

20. A judge is disqualified when personal bias against an attorney adversely affects

the client. Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1087 (Fla. 1983) (“Prejudice

against a party’s attorney can be as detrimental to the interests of that party as

prejudice against the party himself. What is important is the party’s reasonable

belief concerning his or her ability to obtain a fair trial”); Hayslip v. Douglas,

400 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Not until the 1995 revision did Canon 3

expressly include counsel among those against whom a personal bias could

warrant disqualification of the judge. Yet there has long been case law applying

this portion of the canon to manifestations of bias against attorneys. See, e.g.,

Ginsberg v. Holt, 86 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1956); Edwards-Freeman v. State, 138 So.

3d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

13
21. When a judge harbors animosity toward a particular attorney or when a

disagreement with an attorney interferes with the court’s impartiality, this

creates a basis for disqualification. Jimenez v. Ratine, 954 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 2d

DCA 2007); Robinson v. Tobin, 547 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Cardinal v.

Wendy’s of South Florida, Inc., 529 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In Gates v.

State, 784 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), the appellate court overturned

a conviction for second degree murder because the trial judge denied a proper

motion to disqualify. The trial judge became increasingly “frustrated with what

she perceived as incompetence” by one of the defense attorneys, reprimanded

the attorneys loudly in front of the jury.

22. In Marshall v. Bookstein, 789 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), the appellate

court held that a judge improperly denied a motion for disqualification when

the judge, during a calendar hearing, “angrily denounc[ed] [petitioners’

attorneys’] ‘tactics’ and derid[ed] them as substandard ‘Miami Lawyers,’” who

“may get away with it in Miami, but not up here.” Not only does a manifestation

of animosity cause a judge to risk disqualification, but it can result in reversal on

the merits with serious legal consequences. In In re Yacucci, 228 So. 3d 523 (Fla.

14
 2017), a judge was suspended for 30 days without pay and ordered to complete

a judicial ethics course and pay JQC costs, based on an acrimonious relationship

between the judge and an attorney “marked by lawsuits, a public altercation and

televised disparagement, the jailing of [the attorney] for contempt, judicial

campaign disputes, unsolicited attempts to influence a petition for writ of

prohibition, and multiple refusals to disqualify himself.”

23. Former Canon 3A(3) (now 3B(4)) has always provided a basis for disqualification

when a judge’s conduct is undignified or discourteous to anyone appearing

before the court. A Canon 3E disqualification may be triggered by a violation of

this more general Canon 3 admonition for judges to “be patient, dignified, and

courteous to litigants, . . . lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an

official capacity.” Canon 3B(4); see Olszewska v. Ferro, 590 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1991); Gates v. State, 784 So. 2d at 1236. When the trial judge “leaves the

realm of civility and directs base vernacular towards an attorney or litigant in

open court, there are sufficient grounds to require disqualification.” Olszewska,

590 So. 2d at 11 (citing Lamendola v. Grossman, 439 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA

1983); Brown v. Rowe, 96 Fla. 289, 118 So. 9 (1928)). Thus, although the 1994

15
 revisions to Canon 3 appeared to extend protection from perceived bias to

counsel for the first time, case law has long provided such protection; the

altercation must be serious enough that it is reasonable to believe the judge’s

animosity will adversely affect the client. See Ginsberg v. Holt, 86 So. 2d 650

(Fla. 1956).

CERTIFICATION OF GOOD FAITH & SWORN STATEMENT

These statements have been made in good faith and are sworn to by the penalty of
perjury and an officer of the Court.
_/s/Leslie Ferderigos
Leslie Ferderigos, Esq.

WHEREFORE, LESLIE FERDERIGOS, ESQ. Limited Counsel for Former Husband,

GABRIEL SHAPIRO respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion, issue an

Order of Recusal of Judge Cuestas over any cases where Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. is either

limited counsel or counsel of record and all other remedies necessary and just under

statute

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE DO CERTIFY, that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished
electronically with the Clerk of Courts by using the EPORTAL system to ALL
Interested Parties of Record

8-23-2021 /s/Leslie Ferderigos

Dated Leslie Ferderigos, Esq.

16
 Leslie Ann Law, PA
Bar No.:012752
Windermere, FL 34786
Telephone (407) 969-6116
[email protected]

17