Bronick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al
Filing
81
ORDER that the Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse the Honorable James A. Teilborg Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 144 (Doc. 76 ) is reassigned to the Honorable Neil V. Wake United States District Judge. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 5/29/2013. (KMG)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Sandra Bronick, a single woman,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-11-01442-PHX-JAT
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company; et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse the Honorable James A.
16
Teilborg Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 144 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 455 (the “Motion”) (Doc. 76).
17
Plaintiff’s counsel has also filed what he calls an “Affidavit” of Facts and Reasons in
18
Support of Her Motion to Recuse (Doc. 77).
19
I.
BACKGROUND
20
Plaintiff seeks to recuse the undersigned because Defendant’s medical witness saw
21
the undersigned twice as a patient, and because the undersigned’s former law firm utilized
22
the services of the same medical witness in the past for independent medical evaluations
23
(“IMEs”). Out of an abundance of precaution, the undersigned advised the parties before
24
oral argument on Defendant’s pending motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 65),
25
that he had twice seen Dr. Hartzler, an orthopedist, for minor orthopedic issues. The
26
undersigned explained to the parties that he had seen Dr. Hartzler most recently within the
27
preceding few months, and that he had concluded that given the circumstances there was
28
no basis for recusal.
1
Plaintiff’s counsel has attached Exhibit A to the Affidavit (Doc. 77-1) which
2
consists of seven cases in which Dr. Hartzler was hired by the undersigned’s former law
3
firm to perform IMEs. However, only two of the cases occurred when the undersigned
4
was a member of the firm and the undersigned did not work on either case directly. The
5
remaining five cases occurred in 2006, 2007, and 2008, long after the undersigned left the
6
firm to go on the bench in 2000. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel argues that,
7
10
Judge Teilborg obviously trusted Dr. Hartzler while he was in
private practice else he would not have allowed his firm to
hire [Dr. Hartzler] to perform IMEs. Most importantly
however, is the fact that Judge Teilborg entrusted Dr. Hartzler
with his own health.
11
(Doc. 77 at 4). Therefore, counsel concludes that the undersigned is inherently biased to
12
trusting Defendant’s physician. (Id.). Given this conclusion, Plaintiff’s counsel then
13
assumes that Dr. Hartzler will be called as a witness at trial and contends,
8
9
14
18
If Judge Teilborg does not recuse himself, Plaintiff is faced
with the task of putting the Judge’s treating physician on the
stand and explaining to the Judge and jury why the Judge’s
own physician’s opinions are tainted by financial bias; why
the Judge’s physician should not be trusted; and why the
hiring of Dr. Hartzler—an action Judge Teilborg’s previous
firm routinely practiced—amounts to bad faith.
19
(Id.). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel argues that based on an objective standard of
20
reasonableness the undersigned’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned requiring
21
the undersigned to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. (Id.).
22
II.
15
16
17
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANALYSIS
Section 455 is a self-analysis conducted by the undersigned. Section 144 states:
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes
and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before
whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice
either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge
shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be
assigned to hear such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and reasons for the belief
-2-
1
that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than
ten days before the beginning of the term at which the
proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for
failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one
such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a
certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good
faith.
2
3
4
5
6
In an abundance of caution and pursuant to section 144, the Court refers this
7
motion to another district court judge to determine if the undersigned should recuse
8
himself.1
9
However, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to comply with section 144.
10
Under this statute, Plaintiff must file a sufficient affidavit. While Plaintiff’s counsel titled
11
the pleading “Affidavit of Facts and Reasons in Support of Her Motion” (Doc. 77), the
12
pleading is not an affidavit by definition, much less an affidavit by the Plaintiff herself.
13
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, an affidavit is “a voluntary declaration of facts
14
written down and sworn to by the declarant before an officer authorized to administer
15
oaths.” Black’s Law Dictionary 66 (9th ed. 2009). Plaintiff’s Motion is a pleading
16
written by Plaintiff’s counsel with no indication that it was sworn to by counsel or
17
Plaintiff under oath, nor is the pleading made under an unsworn declaration under penalty
18
of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. In spite of these short comings, the Court will
19
still construe Plaintiff’s filing as an affidavit for purposes of referring the section 144
20
motion to another judge for decision.
21
III.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
22
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
28
1
The Clerk of the Court has randomly drawn the Honorable Neil V. Wake United
States District Judge to hear Plaintiff’s Motion.
-3-
1
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse the Honorable
2
James A. Teilborg Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 144 (Doc. 76) is reassigned to the Honorable
3
Neil V. Wake United States District Judge.
4
Dated this 29th day of May, 2013.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
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?