A Florida court recently upheld a stalking injunction against Christina Duby, affecting her relationship with Bernie Marrero, Jr. The ruling, issued by the District Court of Appeal of Florida on August 26, 2026, has raised important questions about due process and the rights of individuals in legal proceedings.
The case, identified by docket number 4D2025-3112, centers around a dispute that began after Duby and Marrero ended their relationship. Marrero, who resides in St. Lucie County, Florida, claimed that Duby engaged in a pattern of long-distance harassment from her home in Bismarck, North Dakota. This situation escalated to the point where Marrero sought legal protection through an injunction for stalking.
The initial petition for the injunction was filed by Marrero in late August 2025. At first, the trial court decided not to issue a temporary injunction, stating there was insufficient evidence to justify such a measure before a hearing. However, a hearing was eventually scheduled for October 14, 2025, after Marrero filed a supplemental petition detailing new harassment allegations.
Duby, who was initially allowed to appear remotely via Zoom for earlier proceedings, requested to attend the final hearing by the same method due to financial constraints. She cited her inability to afford travel costs on short notice, as well as her fixed income situation. Unfortunately, the trial court denied her request to appear remotely just one day before the hearing, stating that the nature of the allegations required in-person testimony.
During the October 14 hearing, which Duby did not attend, the court ruled in favor of Marrero, finding him to be a victim of stalking. As a result, the court issued a permanent injunction against Duby, which would remain in effect until January 14, 2026. Following this decision, Duby filed a motion for rehearing, arguing that the denial of her request to appear remotely constituted a violation of her due process rights. The trial court denied this motion, prompting Duby to appeal the ruling.
The District Court of Appeal ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision. The judges involved in the ruling were identified as GROSS and LEVINE, who concurred with the majority opinion. However, Judge FORST dissented, expressing concerns over the lack of due process afforded to Duby. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Forst stated, "Appellant was not afforded due process when denied a reasonable opportunity to attend the hearing." He argued that the denial of her motion to appear by Zoom prevented her from adequately defending herself.
Judge Forst emphasized that adequate notice is a fundamental element of due process. He noted that Duby had timely filed her request to appear remotely and that the court's last-minute denial of this request effectively barred her from participating in the hearing. He pointed out that the short notice given to Duby did not allow her a fair opportunity to present her case, which is a critical aspect of legal proceedings.
The impact of this ruling could have significant implications for future cases involving similar circumstances. It raises questions about the rights of individuals who may be unable to attend court proceedings in person, particularly those with financial constraints or disabilities. The decision underscores the importance of providing reasonable accommodations to ensure that all parties have the opportunity to be heard in legal matters.
Furthermore, the ruling may set a precedent for how courts handle requests for remote appearances in future cases. If courts continue to deny such requests without sufficient justification, it could lead to a pattern of denying individuals their right to due process. Legal experts and advocates for the rights of individuals in the judicial system may closely monitor how this case influences future rulings.
As for what lies ahead, Duby may have the option to appeal the ruling further, although the details of any potential subsequent actions were not available in the court filing. The dissenting opinion by Judge Forst may provide grounds for further legal arguments regarding the necessity of ensuring due process in similar cases.