Sanchez v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Filing 120

ORDER denying 118 Motion to Stay; final conference and trial dates are vacated, to be reset at a hearing to be scheduled by the court through a separate order;Court directs teh Clerk not to accept for filing any document in this case that bears the name or signature of Naida B. Axford.. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/8/2013.(TCA)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Mark Sanchez, an individual, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendants. 13 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-10-1586-PHX-DGC ORDER 15 Plaintiff Mark Sanchez has filed a motion to stay. Doc. 118. The motion will be 16 denied for the reasons set forth below. The Court will also direct, again, that Naida Beth 17 Axford make no attempt to represent Mr. Sanchez in this case, including appearing on 18 pleadings or attempting to speak for him in court. 19 A. Request to Disqualify. 20 Plaintiff’s motion suggests that the undersigned judge should disqualify himself from 21 this case because of his membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 22 various rulings in this case, and his membership in the State Bar of Arizona. None of these 23 arguments requires disqualification. 24 Plaintiff suggests that the undersigned judge has ruled against him because opposing 25 counsel is also a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If opposing 26 counsel is a member of the LDS church, that fact was not known to the undersigned judge 27 before Plaintiff filed his motion. There are approximately 200,000 members of the LDS 28 church in Arizona; the undersigned judge certainly does not know them all. Moreover, the 1 church has no role in this case, its teachings are not at issue, and the Court does not favor 2 litigants or lawyers because of their religious affiliations. 3 In addition, federal courts consistently hold that membership in a church is not a basis 4 for disqualification. See, e.g., In re McCarthey, 368 F.3d 1266, 1270 (10th Cir. 2004); 5 Feminist Women’s Health Center v. Codispoti, 69 F.3d 399, 400-401 (9th Cir. 1995); Singer 6 v. Wadman, 745 F.2d 606, 608 (10th Cir.1984); Menora v. Illinois High School Ass’n, 527 7 F.Supp. 632, 634 (N.D. Ill. 1981); State of Idaho v. Freeman, 507 F.Supp. 706, 729 (D. Idaho 8 1981); Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, International Union of 9 Operating Engineers, 388 F.Supp. 155 (E.D. Pa.1974). 10 Plaintiff’s argument that the undersigned judge should disqualify himself because of 11 rulings in this case is also incorrect. Rulings in a case do not constitute a basis for 12 disqualification. See Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d 1034, 1046 (9th Cir.1987), aff'd, 13 496 U.S. 543 (1990); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir.1986); Liteky v. 14 United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). Adverse rulings should be appealed when the case is 15 concluded; they do not form the basis for a recusal motion.1 16 Finally, Plaintiff’s assertion that the undersigned should disqualify himself because 17 he is a member of the State Bar of Arizona is not supported by any factual assertion. The 18 State bar is not a party in this case, and its actions are not at issue in this case in any way. 19 B. Ms. Axford. 20 The motion includes Ms. Axford’s name on the first page with Plaintiff’s name, and 21 Ms. Axford’s signature on the last page. Ms. Axford has attempted in the past to represent 22 Plaintiff in this case. Because she is not a member in good standing of the bar of this Court, 23 and has not been admitted for purposes of this case, the Court has told her that she cannot 24 represent Plaintiff. The Court reiterates that instruction. The Court will direct the Clerk not 25 1 26 27 28 Plaintiff’s assertion that the Court interfered with his attempt to learn about courtroom technology is entirely incorrect. The Court had no knowledge of Plaintiff and Ms. Axford’s improper confrontation with the Court’s technical expert until after it had occurred. The Court later admonished Plaintiff, on the record, not to engage in such conduct in the future. That admonishment remains in place for the future conduct of this case. -2- 1 to accept any future filings in this case that bear Ms. Axford’s name or her signature. Ms. 2 Axford cannot speak for Plaintiff in the courtroom, nor speak for Plaintiff in dealing with 3 Court’s staff. She may sit at counsel table to assist Mr. Sanchez in a paralegal-type capacity 4 during hearings and trial so long as her presence does not interfere with the proceedings in 5 any way. 6 C. 7 When another judge recently took senior status, the undersigned judge was assigned 8 a six-week criminal trial that will begin on April 30, 2013. As a result, the final conference 9 on May 2, 2013, and the trial on May 7, 2013, are no longer possible. Those dates are 10 vacated and the Court by separate order will schedule a conference to set a new trial date. Change in Trial Schedule. 11 IT IS ORDERED: 12 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay (Doc. 118) is denied. 13 2. The final conference and trial dates are vacated, to be reset at a hearing to be 14 15 16 17 scheduled by the Court through a separate order. 3. The Court directs the Clerk not to accept for filing any document in this case that bears the name or signature of Naida B. Axford. DATED this 8th day of April, 2013. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?