2020
The Investigative Panel of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission engages in a disciplinary proceeding against Judge Mavel Ruiz.
Source: Florida Supreme Court / Judicial Qualifications Commission
UNETHICAL.
In 2020, Judge Mavel Ruiz admitted to judicial misconduct and “regrets” that her conduct damaged the impartiality of the judiciary.
2019-2020
Judge Mavel Ruiz acknowledges…lending the prestige of her position to advance the private interests (private organization).
Source: JQC Stipulation
2019-2020
Judge Mavel Ruiz admits that her conduct was inappropriate and violated the Canons, and regrets that her conduct damaged the impartiality of the judiciary.
Source: JQC Stipulation
2020
The Florida Supreme Court references a letter sent by Judge Mavel Ruiz and four other judges that was mentioned in a local newspaper article entitled “Alleged conflicts of interest roil $500 million child welfare fight.”
Source: Florida Supreme Court
UNFIT.
In 2022, “improperly” ruled against a couple whose home was severely damaged by Hurricane Irma and ruled in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
2022
A couple’s home, insured by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, was severely damaged during Hurricane Irma. Judge Mavel Ruiz sided with Citizens and denied the couple’s expert, who argued Hurricane Irma’s winds were sufficient to lift and crack the home’s roof shingles and allow it to enter the home’s interior – Judge Mavel Ruiz “improperly” ruled in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
Source: 3rd DCA Opinion
2025
Judge Mavel Ruiz committed a “fundamental error” requiring a reversal and remanded back to her courtroom entering a judgment guilty of a defendant who was illegally charged with a felony.
Source: 3rd DCA Opinion
2025
Judge Mavel Ruiz “was under the mistaken impression that…the failure of the trial court (Judge Mavel Ruiz) to exercise its discretion” required the 3rd District Court of Appeal to reverse and remand.
Source: 3rd DCA Opinion
Unfair.
In 2026, Judge Mavel Ruiz “effectively eviscerated” a person’s property…which constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
2026
“The trial court (Judge Mavel Ruiz) did not provide notice…that effectively eviscerated all of Dana’s property rights. This constitutes an abuse of discretion…the trial court undoubtedly abused its discretion.”
Source: 3rd DCA Opinion