Abraham v. Leigh et al

Filing 572

ORDER granting 570 Letter Motion to Seal. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Robyn Abraham's second motion for recusal. (Dkt. #558-563). Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion papers, it does not appear that Plaintiff advances any argument s premised on occurrences that postdate the events already addressed in the Court's August 28, 2020 Order denying Plaintiff's first motion for recusal. See Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5095655 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020). More fundamentally, for the reasons already discussed at great length in several prior orders, the allegations that Plaintiff reiterates in support of the instant motion are almost entirely factually inaccurate. See e.g., Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ . 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5512718 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020); Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 3833424 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2020), reconsideration denied, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5095655 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020). And those allegation s that do not misperceive or misstate the facts, such as references to the Court's decisions adverse to Plaintiff, are insufficient grounds for recusal. See Bishop v. United States, No. 04 Civ. 3633(CSH), 2004 WL 1497690, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2004) ("Rulings adverse to aparty are not regarded in and of themselves as evidence of such bias orprejudice as would require recusal."). Therefore, for the reasons alreadydiscussed in the Court's August 28, 2020 Order, see 2020 WL 50 95655, at*11-12, Plaintiff's second motion for recusal is DENIED.Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff continues to put irrelevantand sensitive personal information about Plaintiff's former counsel on thepublic docket. Therefore, the Clerk of Court is directed to seal docket entries559-563, to be viewable by the Court and parties only.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/14/2020) (rro)

Download PDF
Case 1:17-cv-05429-KPF Document 572 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBYN ABRAHAM, Plaintiff, 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF) v. ABBY LEIGH, as Executrix of the Estate of Mitch Leigh, ORDER Defendant. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Robyn Abraham’s second motion for recusal. (Dkt. #558-563). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion papers, it does not appear that Plaintiff advances any arguments premised on occurrences that postdate the events already addressed in the Court’s August 28, 2020 Order denying Plaintiff’s first motion for recusal. See Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5095655 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020). More fundamentally, for the reasons already discussed at great length in several prior orders, the allegations that Plaintiff reiterates in support of the instant motion are almost entirely factually inaccurate. See e.g., Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5512718 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020); Abraham v. Leigh, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 3833424 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2020), reconsideration denied, No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5095655 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020). And those allegations that do not misperceive or misstate the facts, such as references to the Court’s decisions adverse to Plaintiff, are insufficient grounds for recusal. See Bishop v. United States, No. 04 Civ. 3633 Case 1:17-cv-05429-KPF Document 572 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 2 (CSH), 2004 WL 1497690, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2004) (“Rulings adverse to a party are not regarded in and of themselves as evidence of such bias or prejudice as would require recusal.”). Therefore, for the reasons already discussed in the Court’s August 28, 2020 Order, see 2020 WL 5095655, at *11-12, Plaintiff’s second motion for recusal is DENIED. Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff continues to put irrelevant and sensitive personal information about Plaintiff’s former counsel on the public docket. Therefore, the Clerk of Court is directed to seal docket entries 559-563, to be viewable by the Court and parties only. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 14, 2020 New York, New York __________________________________ KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge 2

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?