Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton, 04-CV-6355L.
Decision Date | 09 December 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 04-CV-6355L.,04-CV-6355L. |
Citation | 348 F.Supp.2d 18 |
Parties | FAITH TEMPLE CHURCH, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF BRIGHTON, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Ann-Marie Luciano, David L. Cook, Nixon Peabody LLP, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff.
John M. Wilson, II, Boylan, Brown, Code, Vigdor & Wilson, LLP, Rochester, NY, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
By letter dated November 17, 2004 (Docket # 40), counsel for defendants in this action requested that I recuse myself from this case because my son has been offered, and has accepted, an associate position with the law firm of Nixon Peabody LLP, which represents plaintiff. In response to the Court's directives, plaintiff has responded by way of an affidavit of counsel, setting forth certain information concerning my son's prospective employment at Nixon Peabody. Defendants' motion is denied.
The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455, provides in pertinent part that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned," or if "[h]e or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them" is "acting as a lawyer in the proceeding" or "is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding...." 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), (b)(5)(ii), (b)(5)(iii). A judge's son is within the third degree of relationship to the judge. See Matter of Hatcher, 150 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir.1998).
None of those provisions apply here. Although defendants' counsel apparently failed to make inquiry of opposing counsel concerning the circumstances of my son's hiring, he now concedes after reviewing plaintiff's counsel's affidavit that, "this is not likely a situation where mandatory disqualification is required under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)." Counsel continues to suggest, though, that recusal under § 455(a) would be appropriate. Docket # 44 at 1. Since defendants' original recusal motion cited both subsections (a) and (b), however, I will address them both.
First, with respect to § 455(b)(5)(ii), my son is clearly not "acting as a lawyer" in this action. Plaintiff's counsel states in his affidavit, the accuracy of which is not in dispute, that my son has no prior affiliation with Nixon Peabody, and that he will not be involved in this litigation in any way after he begins working there in January 2005. David L. Cook Aff. (Docket # 42) ¶¶ 4-7. See United States ex rel. Weinberger v. Equifax, Inc., 557 F.2d 456, 463 (5th Cir.1977) (, )cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035, 98 S.Ct. 768, 54 L.Ed.2d 782 (1978).
Second, my son does not "have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome" of this case. "Courts have consistently held that a judge's kin does not have an `interest that could be substantially affected' when he or she is only an associate, as opposed to a partner, in a law firm representing a party to the action and does not actively participate in the proceeding." Cloverdale Equipment Co. v. Manitowoc Engineering Co., 964 F.Supp. 1152, 1155 (E.D.Mich.1997) (citing Weinberger, 557 F.2d 456), aff'd, 149 F.3d 1182 (table), 1998 WL 385906 (6th Cir.1998); see also In re Mercedes-Benz Antitrust Litigation, 226 F.Supp.2d 552, 555 (D.N.J.2002) (); Leslie W. Abramson, The Judge's Relative is Affiliated with Counsel of Record: The Ethical Dilemma, 32 Hofstra L.Rev. 1181, 1197 (2004) () (footnote omitted).
The rationale for this is simple: whereas Weinberger, 557 F.2d at 463 (emphasis added; citation omitted); accord In re Kansas Public Employees Retirement Sys., 85 F.3d 1353, 1358 (8th Cir.1996) ( ); United States v. Edwards, 39 F.Supp.2d 692, 713 (M.D.La.1999) ( ).1 Since my son will be employed as an associate attorney at Nixon Peabody, there is no reason to think that he will have any interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this litigation.2
Finally, under all the circumstances here, I do not believe that recusal is warranted under § 455(a). The Second Circuit has explained that an appearance of partiality requiring disqualification under § 455(a) results when the circumstances are such that: (1) a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would conclude that the judge had a disqualifying interest under § 455(b), and (2) such a person would also conclude that the judge knew of that interest and yet heard the case. Chase Manhattan Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 343 F.3d 120, 128 (2d Cir.2003). "In short," the court concluded, § 455(a) applies "when a reasonable person would conclude that a judge was violating" § 455(b). Id.3
For the reasons already stated, I am not disqualified under § 455(b), nor do I believe that a reasonable person, being aware of all the circumstances, would conclude that my "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" in this case by virtue of my son's prospective employment at Nixon Peabody. I recognize that the fact that a judge is not disqualified under § 455(b), is not, in itself, necessarily dispositive, since a judge must still determine whether a reasonable observer might think-even if incorrectly-that the judge does have a disqualifying interest. Id.; In re Certain Underwriter, 294 F.3d 297, 306 (2d Cir.2002) (); Weinberger, 557 F.2d at 463 ( ). But see United States v. Lauersen, 348 F.3d 329, 336 (2d Cir.2003) ( )(quoting In re National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 839 F.2d 1226, 1229 (7th Cir.1988)).
Given the facts set forth above, however, I conclude that recusal under § 455(a) is not warranted here. The simple facts are that my son has not even begun working at Nixon Peabody, and that when he does begin working there, it will be as a salaried associate with no financial stake in the outcome of this case, and with no involvement in the actual litigation of this matter. I do not believe that anyone could reasonably conclude, on those facts, that my impartiality in this case is open to question. See Weinberger, 557 F.2d at 464 ( ); Cloverdale Equip., 964 F.Supp. at 1155 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adair v. State, Dept. of Educ.
...not required where judge's son was an associate of the law firm representing one of the parties); Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton, 348 F.Supp.2d 18 (W.D.N.Y., 2004) (disqualification not required where judge's son had been offered, and had accepted, an associate position with the la......
-
Neroni v. Coccoma
...himself in a case in which his son was a partner at a law firm representing a party before the Court); Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton, 348 F. Supp. 2d 18, 21 (W.D.N.Y. 2004) (holding that recusal was not required where the judge's son had been hired by a law firm that was represent......
-
H.S. Field Servs., Inc. v. Cep Mid-Continent, LLC
...employed the judge's son as an associate. The Court found that recusal was not required. Id. at 1155. In Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton, 348 F.Supp.2d 18 (W.D.N.Y. 2004), the Court addressed a motion to recuse on the basis of the judge's son working as an associate for a law firm i......
-
Jane Doe v. N. Ky. Univ.
...(6th Cir. 1998); In re Kansas Public Employees Retirement Sys., 85 F.3d 1353, 1364-65 (8th Cir. 1996); Faith Temple Church v. Town of Brighton, 348 F. Supp.2d 18, 19-21 (W.D.N.Y. 2004); United States v. Edwards, 39 F. Supp.2d 692, 713-15 (M.D. La. 1999); Wilmington Towing Co., Inc. v. Cape ......