EDMONDSON v. LILLISTON FORD, INC. et al
Filing
76
OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 3/3/16. (js)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
[Docket No. 75]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
SARA ANN EDMONDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil No. 13-7704 (RMB/JS)
OPINION
LILLISTON FORD, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
Sara Ann Edmondson
71 Rainbow Trail
Pittsgrove, NJ 08318
Pro Se Plaintiff
David M. DeClement
P.O. Box 217
Pitman, NJ 08071
Attorney for Defendants
BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Sara Anna
Edmondson’s Motion to Disqualify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)
and § 455(b)(1) [Docket No. 75].
In addition to seeking the
disqualification of this Court, the Plaintiff identifies
provisions of the Consumer Arbitration Rules of the American
Arbitration Association (“AAA”) that purportedly support the
Plaintiff’s position that any disputes between the parties must
be arbitrated by the AAA, not merely in accordance with the
AAA’s rules.
For the following reasons, the Court will deny the
motion to disqualify, but also construe it as a motion for
reconsideration of its February 18, 2016 Order [Docket No. 74].
I.
Motion to Disqualify
This is the Plaintiff’s fourth motion to recuse or
disqualify this Court [Docket Nos. 32, 49, 51, 75].
The Court
denied each of the previous motions as meritless [Docket Nos.
36, 61].
A pattern has clearly emerged in this litigation.
When the Plaintiff is displeased with the Court’s actions or
rulings, she moves to recuse or disqualify this Court due to
alleged bias.
In denying the Plaintiff’s first motion to recuse in March
2014, this Court held that “adverse rulings alone are almost
never proper grounds for recusal, and this Court’s rulings are
no exception.”
No. 36].
March 26, 2014 Memorandum Order at 6-7 [Docket
Rulings and orders “can only in the rarest
circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism
required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved.
Almost
invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for
recusal.”
United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 218 (3d Cir.
2007) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994)).
Additionally, “opinions 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
2
constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they
display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make
fair judgment impossible.”
Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
As before,
the Plaintiff’s allegations of bias or prejudice in her motion
to disqualify are baseless.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion
to disqualify is denied.
II.
Motion for Reconsideration of the February 18, 2016 Order
The Court, however, construes the Plaintiff’s motion as a
motion for reconsideration of its February 18, 2016 Order
directing the parties to select an arbitrator by March 10, 2016
[Docket No. 74] under Local Rule 7.1(i).
The Plaintiff has
identified specific provisions of the AAA’s Consumer Arbitration
Rules that she contends support her position that, under the
governing contract, the arbitration of the parties’ disputes
must be both in accordance with the AAA’s Rules and conducted by
the AAA.
The Court notes that the language of these Rules was not
presented or even alluded to by either party during oral
argument on January 27, 2016.
The Court further notes that it
has been hampered throughout this litigation by the parties’
inability or, perhaps, unwillingness to assist the Court.
The
parties focus instead on attacking each other, leaving the Court
to decipher the relevant facts and law unaided and in a
piecemeal fashion.
Furthermore, the parties’ actions and
3
inactions over the past several months confirm the Court’s
concern that it is unable to rely on either party’s
representations of the facts or law.
In her affidavit attached to the Motion to Disqualify, the
Plaintiff quotes language from what appears to be commentary to
Rule R-1 of the Consumer Arbitration Rules in support of her
position.
While this particular language is not dispositive, a
closer reading of the Consumer Arbitration Rules as a whole
indicates that, where a contract calls for arbitration in
accordance with the AAA’s Rules, the parties also consent to
arbitration conducted by the AAA.
Specifically, the AAA’s
Consumer Arbitration Rules state: “Arbitrations administered
under these Rules shall only be administered by the AAA or by an
individual or organization authorized by the AAA to do so.”
AAA
Consumer Arbitration Rule R-1(b), available at
www.adr.org/consumer.
The Rules further provide that “[w]hen
the consumer and the business agree to arbitrate under these
Rules or other AAA rules . . . , the parties also agree that the
AAA will administer the arbitration.”
Id. at R-13.
The AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules also address the costs
of arbitration and set forth who is required to pay such costs.
Id. at R-4; pp. 33-46 (Costs of Arbitration).
The Costs of
Arbitration section limits the consumer’s costs to the $200
filing fee.
The remaining costs are to be paid by the business
4
and vary according to whether a hearing is required and, if so,
whether the hearing is telephonic or in-person and how many
arbitrators are involved.
Id. at p. 33 (Costs of Arbitration).
The Rules make clear that, aside from the $200 filing fee, the
business is required to pay the costs of arbitration.
In light of these Rules, the Court will reconsider and
vacate its February 18, 2016 Order [Docket No. 74].
The
Defendants shall show cause on or before March 10, 2016 why the
contract between the parties does not require the parties to
submit their disputes to arbitration conducted by the AAA or by
an individual or organization authorized by the AAA and the
Defendants to pay the costs associated with the arbitration as
set forth in the Consumer Arbitration Rules.
In the event that
the Defendants fail to do so, or the Court is not persuaded by
the Defendants’ submission, which is likely, the Court intends
to order the parties to arbitrate their disputes in accordance
with the Consumer Arbitration Rules, including the Costs of
Arbitration provisions, in an arbitration administered by the
AAA.
The Court notes that the parties failed to comply with
this Court’s previous Order compelling arbitration [Docket No.
61].
The Court does not tolerate non-compliance with its Orders
and anticipates full compliance with this Opinion and the
accompanying Order, as well as any and all future Orders.
5
The
Court will not hesitate to consider the full range of
appropriate sanctions in the event of future non-compliance.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiff’s Motion to
Disqualify [Docket No. 75] is denied.
Additionally, the Court
construes the Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify as a motion for
reconsideration, under Local Rule 7.1(i), given the issues
raised in the Plaintiff’s affidavit.
The Court will reconsider
and vacate its February 18, 2016 Order.
On or before March 10,
2016, the Defendants shall show cause why the governing contract
does not compel arbitration administered by the AAA in
accordance with the AAA’s Consumer Arbitration Rules.
An
appropriate Order shall issue on this date.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 3, 2016
6
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?