Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated

Filing 716

ORDER REGARDING RELATED CASES AND REFERRAL OF PENDING MOTION FOR RECUSAL: (28 in 3:10-cv-03200-WHA) MOTION for Recusal -Notice of Motion and Motion for Recusal of United States District Judge William H. Alsup and Request That Motion Be Heard By A Different Judge filed by Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 30, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2010)

Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated

Doc. 716

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BERNARD PARRISH, BOB GRANT, ROY LEE JEFFERSON, WALTER BEACH, DR. CLINTON JONES, WALTER ROBERTS, III, CLIFTON McNEIL, MARVIN COBB, JOHN BRODIE, CHUCK BEDNARIK, AND PAUL HORNUNG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP and McKOOL SMITH, PC, Defendants. HERBERT ANTHONY ADDERLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants. / / FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

No. C 10-03200 WHA and No. C 07-00943 WHA

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER REGARDING RELATING CASES AND REFERRAL OF PENDING MOTION FOR RECUSAL

As defined by Civil Local Rule 3-12(a), an action is related to another when: (1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

These cases are clearly related under this definition. The issue of the performance of class counsel overlaps. The entire background of the cases overlaps. The issue of the group licensing agreement and its interpretation overlaps. Most of the plaintiffs in the second action are class members in the first case. Also of importance is the stormy relationship of one of the plaintiffs vis-a-vis class counsel. Also present is the question of whether the objections now presented in the new case should have been presented with the objections in the original class action. And, the second action is a criticism of the way in which the first action was litigated. Bringing in a new judge to re-plow all of these overlapping grounds would be wasteful and invite inconsistent results. This is a key consideration behind the related-case ruling. It plainly applies here. So, the order relating the two cases will stand. As for the comments made by the undersigned judge of concern to class counsel in the first case, they were made in direct response to a motion for attorney's fees in the first case and were made to explain why class counsel were not entitled to the premium fee requested. Those comments, however, were not a criticism that class counsel had committed malpractice vis-a-vis the class. Whether or not malpractice occurred would involve a broader range of considerations. Had counsel requested a normal fee, it is likely that the comments would have gone unsaid. Counsel, however, requested a larger, premium fee and the comments were only made by way of explaining why a more normal fee was in order. With respect to the prospect of the pending motion for recusal of the undersigned judge, it must be said that every observation made by the undersigned judge about the performance of class counsel was made in the official line of duty in adjudicating issues in the first action. Nothing was said outside of the normal judicial process. As explained by the Supreme Court: [O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Thus, judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

That said, the recusal motion will be referred to another judge for decision and the Clerk is
ORDERED

to assign that motion to a randomly selected district judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2010.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3