KENNEDY v. EQUIFAX, INC. et al

Filing 73

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECUSAL (DOCKET NO. 64 ) IS DENIED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT, RICHARD SMITH (DOCKET NO. 25 ) IS GRANTED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT EQUIFAX, INC., (DOCKET NO. 26 ) IS GRANTED; THE MOTION TO DISMIS S OF DEFENDANT, AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA (DOCKET NO. 57 ), IS GRANTED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT, BARBARA LOPEZ (DOCKET NO. 58 ) IS GRANTED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT, STEVEN CRAIG LEMASTERS (DOCKET NO. 59 ), IS GRANTED; PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCKET NO. 65 ) IS DENIED; THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 3/27/19. 3/27/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mas, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EDWARD T. KENNEDY,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
EQUIFAX, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 18-214

ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th

day of March, 2019, upon consideration of all pending motions

in this matter, as well as all responses and replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (Docket No. 64) is DENIED1;

2.

The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant, Richard Smith (Docket No. 25) is

GRANTED;
3.

The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Equifax, Inc., (Docket No. 26) is

GRANTED;
4.

The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant, American Bankers Insurance Company of

Florida (Docket No. 57), is GRANTED;
5.

The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant, Barbara Lopez (Docket No. 58) is

GRANTED;
1

Kennedy moves for my recusal under 28 U.S.C § 455(a), which allows a party to seek recusal of a federal judge on
the basis of bias and prejudice and “requires a judge to recuse where his or her impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.” Mina v. Chester County, 2015 WL 6550543, at *6 (E.D. Pa. 2015); see also Petrossian v. Cole, 613
Fed.Appx. 109, 112 (3d Cir. 2015). While the statute mandates recusal if the judge’s impartiality might reasonably
be questioned, “a party’s displeasure with legal ruling does not form an adequate basis for recusal.” Id. (citing
Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000)). Further, “recusal is not required
on the grounds of unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation.” Id. (citing In re Kokinda, 581 Fed.Appx.
160, 161 (3d Cir. 2014)). Kennedy’s motion for recusal and memorandum in support fail to set forth any basis
whatsoever for my requested recusal. Accordingly, his motion is denied.

6.

The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant, Steven Craig LeMasters (Docket No. 59), is

GRANTED;
7.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 65) is DENIED;

8.

The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

9.

The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL, J.