In a case now echoing across Florida’s legal circles, Plaintiffs appear before Judge Mavel Ruiz for a pivotal hearing on their Rule 1.540(b)(4) Motion to Vacate a Void Judgment a motion that could unravel not just a case, but a courtroom.
Hearing is scheduled to commence on Monday, 5 January, 2026.
The case in question is Shitta-Bey Vs Joseph Durantis et all, case No 2021-009833-CA-01
At issue is what legal experts describe as a textbook jurisdictional failure: the Defendants’ dispositive motion for summary judgment (DE 92) was never served with a proper notice of hearing upon the pro se Plaintiffs. Without that notice, say constitutional scholars, the court never acquired jurisdiction to rule, and the April 2024 Final Summary Judgment is void ab initio.
“A dispositive hearing without proper notice is not just unfair. it’s legally non-existent ,” said a retired Florida appellate judge. “No notice means no jurisdiction. No jurisdiction means no judgment.”
Even more striking is what the Defendants confirmed themselves in their December 29, 2025 filing: nowhere in their 9-page response do they attach or identify any valid Notice of Hearing for the Summary Judgment (DE 92) Legal observers see this as a fatal concession. The Plaintiffs argue the dispositive hearing held i was noticed only for a represented co-plaintiff, FAIMG, and that when they objected to Judge Ruiz on the record, she dismissed their concerns, and continued.
“That’s not a hearing,” one constitutional law professor remarked. “That’s an ambush. The Plaintiffs were railroaded into a dispositive ruling without a single valid notice.”
The Final Summary Judgment order itself omits the Plaintiffs’ names, referring only to “argument of counsel” despite the fact that Shitta-Bey and Ivanoff were unrepresented pro se litigants. This, analysts say, suggests structural due process violations and an intent to conceal the irregularity.
While the Third DCA’s affirmance of the judgment came via a bare per curiam affirmance (PCA) with no opinion or analysis , experts note that a PCA is not res judicata on voidness:
“A PCA settles nothing where jurisdiction was never acquired,” said a litigation expert familiar with the case. “And it certainly does not insulate a judge from the consequences of ignoring mandatory notice requirements.”
Now, with the January 5 hearing looming, the spotlight is squarely on Judge Mavel Ruiz. If she refuses to vacate the judgment without pointing to a docketed, served dispositive hearing notice, that refusal itself may be void, ultra vires, and grounds for appellate reversal or JQC investigation.
Already, whispers of ex parte coordination, docket manipulation, and a cover-up of due process violations are sparking concern among legal watchdogs.
“The rule of law is on trial here,” one former judicial ethics investigator said. “And if this court refuses to admit it violated the Constitution, it’s not just a void judgment we’re talking about, it’s a void system.”
The case of Shitta-Bey v. Durandis, once buried in the docket, now threatens to explode into a statewide referendum on judicial accountability and due process in Florida courts.
“The facts are in. The notice is not. If this Court refuses to void the judgment now, it may be the Court’s own ruling that is declared void next.”
