Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, et al

Filing 638

LETTER signed by Clerk of Court Keith Holland on 12/6/2023 re: Potential Conflict of Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota. Responses to Letter due by 1/6/2024. (Donati, J)

Keith Holland
Clerk
Jenna Nelson
Chief Deputy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Office of the Clerk
Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse
501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200
Sacramento, California 95814-7300
Phone: [phone]
Website: www.caed.uscourts.gov

Divisional Office:
Angela Alvarez
Deputy In Charge
Robert E. Coyle
United States Courthouse
2500 Tulare Street, Room 1501
Fresno, California 93721
Phone: [phone]

December 6, 2023

In re: Sharidan Stiles v. Walmart Inc. et al., (2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC)
Dear Ms. Stiles and Defense Counsel (VIA US MAIL and CM/ECF),
I have been contacted by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota, who presided
over various hearings and issued rulings during the pendency of the above-mentioned
case.
Judge Cota informed me that during the pendency of this case his wife owned
stock in Walmart, which stock she previously received via inheritance. The ownership
of such stock neither affected nor impacted Judge Cota’s decisions in this case.
However, to the extent that such stock ownership by a family member has prompted
recusal by Judge Cota in the other pending actions involving Ms. Stiles and Walmart,
Judge Cota directed that I notify the parties of the issue as to this previously closed
matter.
Advisory Opinion No. 71, from the Judicial Conference Codes of Conduct
Committee, provides the following guidance for addressing disqualification that is not
discovered until after a judge has participated in a case:
[A] judge should disclose to the parties the facts bearing
on disqualification as soon as those facts are learned, even
though that may occur after entry of the decision. The
parties may then determine what relief they may seek and
a court (without the disqualified judge) will decide the
legal consequence, if any, arising from the participation of
the disqualified judge in the entered decision.
Although Advisory Opinion No. 71 contemplated disqualification after a Court
of Appeals oral argument, the Committee explained “[s]imilar considerations would
apply when a judgment was entered in a district court by a judge and it is later learned
that the judge was disqualified.”

With Advisory Opinion N o . 71 in mind, you are invited to respond to
Judge Cota’s disclosure in this case.
Should you wish to respond, please
submit your response on or before January 6, 2024.
Any response will be
considered by another judge of this court without the participation of Judge Cota.
Sincerely,

Clerk of Court