>
Legal fight over Fernandina Beach recall intensifies ahead of March 31 hearing
Nassau County Judge Marianne Aho Tuesday delayed a decision on whether to halt the recall effort targeting Fernandina Beach Commissioners Genece Minshew and Tim Poynter, instead rescheduling a key injunction hearing for next week after questions over legal service and timing dominated initial arguments.
At a hearing, attorneys for both sides agreed to continue the matter to next Tuesday at 2 p.m., giving defendants time to formally accept service and prepare arguments on the merits of the case.
The hearing was originally set to consider the lawsuit filed by Minshew and Poynter seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the recall effort, arguing deficiencies in the petitions and the process. The recall campaign, led by Gass and Recall FB 2026, has advanced following signature verification by the Supervisor of Elections.
However, the proceeding quickly shifted to procedural concerns after the commissioners’ attorney, Samuel Zeskin, acknowledged difficulty serving papers to recall committee chair Pat Gass.
Zeskin told the court that multiple attempts had been made to serve Gass at her residence and her son’s home, without success. He argued the court could still proceed given “reasonable efforts” had been made.
Attorney James Bruner, representing Gass and the political committee Recall FB 2026, countered that due process required additional time and confirmed Gass had been out of state but had returned to Nassau County the night before the hearing.
After a brief recess, Bruner agreed to accept service on behalf of his client, clearing a key procedural hurdle and allowing the case to move forward on a revised schedule.
While Tuesday’s hearing did not address the substance of the recall challenge, attorneys previewed sharply different views on urgency and harm.
Bruner argued there is no “irreparable harm” justifying an injunction and emphasized the need for time to prepare a defense, noting legal precedent suggesting at least seven days’ notice for such hearings.
Zeskin, meanwhile, stressed the accelerating timeline of the recall process, telling the court, “The clock is ticking,” and urging a prompt resolution.
Attorneys for the Supervisor of Elections, Janet Adkins, also raised concerns about timing, warning that delays could interfere with election administration, including ballot preparation and overlapping petition verification for other candidates.
Judge Aho acknowledged those constraints but declined to expedite the hearing further, noting her newly open schedule and the need to balance preparation time with election deadlines.
Another flashpoint involved statutory deadlines tied to the recall process.
Under Florida law, elected officials subject to recall have a limited window — typically five business days after petition certification — to submit a 200-word defense statement that appears on the ballot.
Zeskin argued that deadline should be temporarily extended until after the injunction hearing, while Bruner objected, arguing such relief would improperly interfere with the statutory process and did not meet the legal standard for emergency action.
Judge Aho did not rule on that issue Tuesday but invited the commissioners’ legal team to file a separate motion, setting a potential case management hearing later this week to address the timing dispute.
Tuesday’s hearing also surfaced a secondary legal dispute over representation, with Bruner objecting to the involvement of attorneys paid by the city of Fernandina Beach, suggesting potential legal conflicts. Zeskin responded by citing Florida Supreme Court precedent supporting such representation.
The rescheduled March 31 hearing is expected to focus squarely on whether the court should grant a preliminary injunction halting the recall process.
Judge Aho indicated the proceeding is likely to be a legal, rather than evidentiary, hearing centered on the sufficiency of the recall petitions themselves.
In the meantime, the recall process continues to move forward, with election officials balancing statutory timelines against the pending court challenge.
Comments
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Jwmckinnie
Small town politics where the only parties having “fun” and making money are the attorneys.
Wednesday, March 25 Report this
Barbarosa
"Tuesday’s hearing also surfaced a secondary legal dispute over representation, with Bruner objecting to the involvement of attorneys paid by the city of Fernandina Beach, ,,," Until proven otherwise, I know that the attorneys are being paid by the insurance carrier of the city's 'Director and Officer' Insurance policy. A sunk cost that, without, no one would ever become a city official.
Wednesday, March 25 Report this
Mark Tomes
Definitely feels like something fishy going on, with only two of the commissioners singled out for recall, despite other commissioners voting for paid parking. Removing two vulnerable commissioners would pave the way for two others who might be more business-friendly, RYAM-friendly, development-friendly, etc. Just the fact that the whole recall effort seems tainted and opaque would be enough to vote against the recall, besides the obvious issue that the commissioners are just doing their job and shouldn't be recalled just for that.
Thursday, March 26 Report this
Bob121
so, who is paying the attorneys for the commissioners?
Thursday, March 26 Report this
CarolC33
This is why I feel so strongly about not having paid parking in Fernandina Beach--I come there as as respite from my West Coast home, Sarasota, which enacted paid parking several years ago in spite of residents' and visitors' wishes. It's been a disaster for those residents, visitors, and also city officials who had hoped for a financial windfall. Here's a headline from today's weekly Sarasota News Leader: "Paid-parking hours to be extended and citation fees to rise in city of Sarasota to overcome Parking Division deficits"
Get ready, Fernandina--you're next!!
Friday, March 27 Report this
BeachEd
These people are elected to a public office. If the public feels they should be recalled then so be it. The public should have the right to do just that. All politicians are accountable to we the people. Where are to the No Kings participants ? I thought they felt that all politicians should be held accountable. Wouldn’t that involve a recall vote if the voting public decides it’s warranted ?
Sunday, March 29 Report this