Cargill, Incorporated v. WDS, Inc. et al

Filing 477

ORDER that for the reasons stated in counsels filing (Doc. No. 472), as well as the applicable law and supporting materials included in counsels response (Docs. Nos. 472-1, 472-2, 472-3), the Court concludes there is no basis for recusal in this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(iii). re 459 Order Setting Response Deadline. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 09/11/2018. (brl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:16-cv-00848-FDW-DSC
CARGILL, INC., and CARGILL MEAT )
SOLUTIONS, CORP.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WDS, INC., JENNIFER MAIER, and )
BRIAN EWERT,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte upon the filing of The Finley Group, Inc’s
Motion for Order in Aid of Bankruptcy Proceeding of Diverse Label Printing, LLC. (Doc. No.
456). The Finley Group is represented by Kiah T. Ford, IV of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein,
LLP. (Doc. No. 456). Because of the undersigned’s relationship within the third degree with a
partner of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, the Court ordered Kiah T. Ford, IV of Parker Poe
Adams & Bernstein, LLP to brief the Court as to whether the undersigned’s brother has “an interest
that

could

be

substantially

affected

by

the

outcome

of

the

proceeding[.]”

28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(iii). (Doc. No. 459).
Counsel timely complied by filing a detailed response, including declarations from counsel
appearing in this matter and the law firm’s managing partner regarding the firm’s limited
representation in this proceeding and the minimal amount, if any, the undersigned’s brother is
unlikely to, but may, receive from fees in this matter. (Doc. No. 472; Exhibits 2-3). Following

1

this filing, no other party to this action filed any objection or otherwise responded to this Court’s
order and counsel’s response thereto, and the time for doing so has expired.
For the reasons stated in counsel’s filing (Doc. No. 472), as well as the applicable law and
supporting materials included in counsel’s response (Docs. Nos. 472-1, 472-2, 472-3), the Court
concludes there is no basis for recusal in this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(iii).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 11, 2018

2