of prohibition. While we find that Jackson’s November 15 motion for disqualification of the trial judge was legally sufficient, and was timely as to the conduct of the November 10 hearing, Jackson thereafter failed to take appropriate and timely steps to seek our review of the order denying disqualification and to prevent the trial judge from taking further action pending such appellate review. The general rule of timeliness for judicial disqualifications requires action “at [the] first opportunity to do so in a proceeding before that judge.” St. Pierre v. State, 966 So.2d 972, 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). We have stated the rule as requiring action “as soon as practicable.” People Against Tax Revenue Mismanagement, Inc. v. Reynold umbing Co., Inc., 325 So.2d 475, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (<HOLDING>). We recognize that the procedural context of
holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial holding a motion is untimely if not filed after the party has knowledge to support disqualification and after the party suffers an adverse ruling holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum holding suit filed ninetyone days after notice untimely holding that an untimely postjudgment motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and that this court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal