Eight days after the Bar moved to dismiss, before Husband had filed his opposition, Judge Dempsey's assistant asked the Bar's lawyer: "Please provide an order in word granting the Motion to Dismiss." The final judgment, built on that draft, followed with no hearing, on three grounds his filings had already answered.
On a motion to dismiss a verified records petition, the court takes the petition's facts as true and reads the opposition before it decides. Whether records "do not exist" is settled on evidence at a hearing.
- Jan. 27 to Feb. 5, 2026: the Bar moved to dismiss; the docket holds no order setting a response date. At 11:27 AM on Feb. 4, Judge Dempsey's judicial assistant wrote the Bar's counsel: "Please provide an order in word granting the Motion to Dismiss." At 12:19 PM Husband asked for "just 14, or even 10 days" and "a hearing and an opportunity for argument before the Court on the dismissal issue," the second of five written requests. The Bar's draft arrived at 5:27 PM; his opposition, Feb. 5. No hearing was ever set. N-079Read them: Chambers email, Feb. 4, 2026 (link pending redacted copy) · The Bar's draft order (link pending redacted copy)
- Feb. 13, 2026: final judgment, built on the Bar's draft down to its caption typo ("IN AND FOR OR LEON COUNTY"). Ground 1, no jurisdiction "to review the Bar's decision to dismiss Plaintiff's grievance": the Bar's own motion says its records "are governed by" Rule 2.420, and the response said "discipline is no part of the relief requested." Ground 2, "immune from suit": the response said, "Plaintiff Hanson is not suing for tort damages. He is petitioning for Mandamus." Ground 3, "all the reasons articulated in the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss," including "Such records were not provided because they do not exist": the motion's own exhibit is three Bar letters, each copied to Davis, and the response called existence "a disputed question of fact." N-077, N-079Read them: Motion to dismiss and exhibit, record on appeal pp. 625-643 (link pending redacted copy) · Response, record on appeal pp. 644-658 (link pending redacted copy) · Final judgment, record on appeal pp. 769-770 (link pending redacted copy)
- Feb. 19 to 24, 2026: rehearing said it again: "This is a Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking specific performance and public records." Denied five days later, "no legal or factual basis," file closed. N-079Read them: Rehearing motion and denial, record on appeal pp. 771-775 (link pending redacted copy)
Judge Angela C. Dempsey (judgment; rehearing denial). Kerri L. Owens, her judicial assistant (the Feb. 4 request). John Londot, Greenberg Traurig, for the Bar (the motion; the draft order). One petition, one motion, one response, one judgment, all on this court's docket; no other card is needed.
Art. I, s. 24(a), Fla. Const. presumes the record open; the custodian carries the burden. Rule 2.420(l)(2) sends enforcement against a non-judge custodian to the circuit court. Rule 1.630(d)(2): on a prima facie showing the court "must issue" an alternative writ. On a motion to dismiss the petition's facts are taken as true; whether a record exists is decided after a hearing (Consumer Rights, LLC v. Bradford County, 153 So. 3d 394, 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)).
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
The judge's office asked the Bar's lawyer for the dismissal order the day before Husband's opposition was filed.
On February 4, 2026 the judicial assistant to Judge Dempsey emailed the Bar's counsel: "Please provide an order in word granting the Motion to Dismiss." Counsel returned a draft the same day. Husband filed his opposition the next day and asked for a hearing. On February 13 the court entered final judgment for the Bar, adopting the Bar's own grounds, whose operative assertion, that the records "were not provided because they do not exist," is not sworn. Husband moved for rehearing on February 19; on February 24 it was denied for lack of any legal or factual basis, with no further motions allowed and the file ordered closed. The certified docket's hearing table is empty; no hearing was ever held. The court added the grounds itself; the Bar's draft had granted the motion in one line. The signed order recites having considered a response that did not exist when the order granting the motion was solicited. [DENIED]
Rule 1.630(d)(2) told the court what a petition showing a prima facie case gets: an alternative writ and a return. A motion is decided after the response is in, and a court that asks the winning side to draft the order does so after deciding. Here the sequence ran backward: order requested from the Bar's counsel first, opposition filed second, final judgment for the Bar signed third, reciting a response that did not exist when the order was requested. Husband asked for a hearing four times in writing; none was set.
the court solicited the dismissal order from the Bar's counsel the day before Husband's opposition was even filed, granted the dismissal without ever holding a hearing, and denied rehearing with the file ordered closed
- Chambers email chain of 2/4, 2/5, and 2/19/26.
- Both orders and the certified Leon progress docket (First DCA record pp. 4-5, 769-770, 775).
- The Bar's motion (pp. 625-638): "for all the reasons articulated in the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,".
- Husband's response (pp. 644-713).
- Draft-vs-signed comparison by exact text extraction, not OCR.
- Rehearing denial: "no legal or factual basis,".