Haire v. 5445 Caruth Haven Lane Apartments Owner LLC

• Decision Date: 23 September 2022
• Docket Number: CIVIL 3:21-CV-3127-S-BK
• Parties: Tiffany Haire, Plaintiff, v. 5445 Caruth Haven Lane Apartments Owner LLC, Lincoln Property Company Inc., Travis Bowels, Nikki Saldana, Elia Nieto, UBS Realty Investors LLC, Bhavin Parekh, and Jennifer L. Owen, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

Tiffany Haire, Plaintiff, v. 5445 Caruth Haven Lane Apartments Owner LLC, Lincoln Property Company Inc., Travis Bowels, Nikki Saldana, Elia Nieto, UBS Realty Investors LLC, Bhavin Parekh, and Jennifer L. Owen, Defendants.

CIVIL No. 3:21-CV-3127-S-BK

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

September 23, 2022

FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RENEE HARRIS TOLIVER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case has been referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Amended Judgment. Doc. 117. Although Plaintiff styles her motion as one to set aside the judgment entered in favor of Defendants Libby Hassell, Jennifer Morris, Jennifer Styers and Carolyn Taylor (the “Dismissed Parties”), the crux of her argument is that the undersigned magistrate judge and assigned district judge should be recused from this case. Doc. 117 at 2.

Judges must recuse themselves or be disqualified “in any proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Willey v. Harris County Dist Atty., 27 F.4th 1125, 1137 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)). Under section 455(a), a judge should avoid even the appearance of partiality. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994).

Here, Plaintiff requests that the undersigned magistrate judge be involuntarily disqualified from this case due to “inappropriate contact with Defendants,” breach of judicial ethics, and failing to address the “fraud upon the court” perpetrated by counsel for the Dismissed Parties. Doc. 117 at 2. Additionally, Plaintiff requests that the district judge recuse herself due to “at the very minimum, the ‘appearance of bias.'” Id.

Upon consideration, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's scurrilous and conclusory assertions regarding the judges assigned to this case wholly lack factual basis, and that neither judge's impartiality can reasonably be questioned under these circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); Liteky, 510 U.S. at 548. Accordingly Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Amended Judgment, Doc. 117, should be DENIED.

Plaintiff is again admonished regarding the risk of sanctions should she continue to file frivolous pleadings (pleadings that lack any factual or legal basis).

SO RECOMMENDED on September 23, 2022.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or...