Leto v. World Recovery Service, LLC

Filing 9

ORDER OF RECUSAL. Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney recused. Case reassigned to District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr for all further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 4/13/2015. (eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00489-FDW-DCK
GARY R. LETO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WORLD RECOVERY SERVICE, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte concerning the status of this case. On
March 11, 2015, this Court issued a Show Cause Order to Plaintiff to respond as to why this case
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 7). In response, Plaintiff—through his
counsel—filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. No. 8). In that response, Plaintiff’s counsel
indicated, “In the interest of full disclosure, Plaintiff realized, when his attorneys presented him
with the declaration in support of his motion to sign, that Plaintiff . . . was a student in Judge
Whitney’s Federal Sentencing Law class at the Charlotte School of Law in January of this year.”
Id. at 1, n. 1. Plaintiff’s motion contends that this does not present an issue requiring transfer of
this case to another judge.
Section 455(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code requires a federal judge to “disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” While the
Court stops short of concluding that recusal here is required, the Court finds several unique factors
in this case make recusal the more prudent action. Here, the Court notes the close proximity in
time to the class attended by Plaintiff, as well as the fact the class was a concentrated seminarstyle class limited to six students. Additionally, the instant motion before the Court concerns a

default judgment where the Court’s discretion, in large part, governs the appropriate award of
damages to Plaintiff. Thus, in the interests of avoiding the appearance of any impartiality, recusal
is appropriate. The Court notes that this ruling is entirely distinguishable from a scenario where a
former student appears as counsel for a party in an action before this Court. Instead, this case is
sui generis in that a former student to a class taught by the undersigned less than three months ago
is the party to this action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court recuses itself from this matter, and the
Clerk’s office is respectfully DIRECTED to reassign this case to another judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: April 13, 2015