ANDERSON v. BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF THE MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT et al
Filing
307
MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING 299 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 09/19/2013. (lcb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARYANN ANDERSON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SUSAN SULLIVAN, DEAN MAYNARD, )
REBECCA MANCINI,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Civil Action No. 07-111 ERIE
MEMORANDUM ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND/OR MOTION FOR RECUSAL (DOC. NO. 299)
I.
Introduction
Presently before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion for
Recusal. Doc. No. 299. Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on May 11, 2007. Doc. No. 1. The case
was assigned to the Erie division of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania and presided over by former Chief Judge Sean J. McLaughlin until it was reassigned to this Court on August 27, 2013, due to Judge McLaughlin’s retirement from the
Court. Doc. No. 301.
On August 23, 2010, Plaintiff moved the Court to impose sanctions on Defendants
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b).1 Doc. No. 183. Judge McLaughlin presided
over an evidentiary hearing related to Plaintiff’s Motion in January 2010. Following the close of
discovery, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Spoliation Sanctions in late 2011. Doc. No. 233. Judge
McLaughlin presided over seven (7) days of evidentiary hearings on this Motion on April 10-13,
1
The Court also notes that Defendants moved Judge McLaughlin to impose sanctions against
Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 37(b) and 37(c)(1). Doc. Nos. 87 and 109.
2012, and May 1-3, 2012. Doc. Nos. 253-256, 259-261. Following these hearings, the parties
filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law related to Plaintiff’s Motions. Doc. Nos.
201-202, 262-265. Prior to Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions being filed, Defendants
moved the Court to grant summary judgment in their favor. Doc. Nos. 175 and 177. Judge
McLaughlin, in a 72 page Opinion, granted summary judgment to Defendants as to all of
Plaintiff’s claims on March 26, 2013, but retained jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pending Motions
for Sanctions.2 Doc. No. 286. Plaintiff has appealed this decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. Doc. No. 290.
As noted by Plaintiff, on August 2, 2013, Judge McLaughlin announced his resignation
from the bench, to be effective August 16, 2013. Doc. No. 304-1 and 304-3. Judge McLaughlin
has accepted a position as General Counsel for Erie Indemnity Company (“EIC”) and the
affiliated companies of Erie Insurance Group (“EIG”). Id. On August 16, 2013, Judge
McLaughlin issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (67 pages in length) denying
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11(b) Motion. Doc. No. 297. That same day, Judge
McLaughlin also issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (39 pages in length)
denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions. Doc. No. 298. Plaintiff moves this Court to
reconsider these rulings and find that Judge McLaughlin erred because he did not recuse himself
from this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Plaintiff contends that Judge McLaughlin was
obliged to recuse himself because his new employment created an appearance of impropriety.
II.
Standard of Review
A proper motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) must rely on one of three grounds:
(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence that was not
2
Judge McLaughlin had previously granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss after extensive briefing and oral argument. 07/29/2008 Text Order.
2
available when the Court entered judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting
Max’s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 678 (3d Cir. 1999)).
III.
Discussion
Plaintiff moves this Court to reconsider Judge McLaughlin’s decision on her Motion for
Sanctions and Motion for Spoliation Sanctions based upon the purported need to prevent
manifest injustice. Doc. No. 304, 6. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Judge McLaughlin’s
impartiality may be called into question under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Id. Section 455(a) provides
that “any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The inquiry is “whether a
reasonable person, knowing all the acknowledged circumstances, might question the district
court judge’s continued impartiality.” Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 164
(3d Cir. 1993).
Matthew McCullough (“McCullough”), an attorney representing Defendant Mancini
(“Mancini”), is a partner at the Erie law firm of MacDonald Illig Jones and Britton LLP
(“MacDonald Illig”). EIC/EIG employs MacDonald Illig as insurance defense counsel and in
other matters and according to Plaintiff, the relationship between the two entities spans more
than 40 years and is “well known within . . . Erie.” Doc. No. 304, 5. Plaintiff contends that due
to the relationship between EIC/EIG and MacDonald Illig, “the anticipated personal and
professional relationships that Judge McLaughlin will soon have with MacDonald Illig are no
different than they would be if he were leaving the bench to work directly for the law firm.”
Doc. No. 304, 10. Plaintiff argues that such a relationship causes Judge McLaughlin’s
impartiality to be called into question and necessitates that his rulings be reconsidered.
3
Plaintiff bases her argument on the length of time her Motions were pending and the
timing of Judge McLaughlin’s rulings after accepting new employment. Plaintiff’s Motions
were pending for approximately two-and-a-half years and three years and Judge McLaughlin
issued the rulings on his last day on the bench. Although Plaintiff points to the timing of Judge
McLaughlin’s ruling as reason to grant her motion, the docket supports the conclusion that any
“delay” was due to Judge McLaughlin’s extensive pre-trial proceedings in this case including:
motions practice, over ten (10) days of hearings, and the factual review necessary to rule on
Plaintiff’s Motions for Sanctions. Plaintiff previously cited Judge McLaughlin’s failure to act
sufficiently expeditiously in her prior Motion for Recusal. However, as explained by Judge
McLaughlin, any “delay” was due to “the complexity of the subject matter” and “substantial time
ha[d] been invested by the Court toward resolving Plaintiff’s Rule 11 motion, despite a busy
court docket involving time-consuming matters, including criminal cases, which due to the
speedy trial concerns, took precedence over this case.” Judge McLaughlin presided over this
case for over five (5) years. The docket includes several lengthy, detailed, and factually specific
opinions on issues raised by both parties, including a prior unsuccessful Motion for Recusal by
Plaintiff. Doc. Nos. 232, 286, 297, 298. The complete record of the litigation before Judge
McLaughlin, including his denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, would not raise a question
of impartiality to the “well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer.” Sensley v. Albritton,
385 F.3d 591, 599 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting U.S. v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 156 (5th Cir. 1995). The
Court’s inquiry is based upon the reasonable person, “[not] the hypersensitive, cynical, and
suspicious person.” Id.
Secondly, although Plaintiff contends that the filing of Judge McLaughlin’s rulings just
prior to commencing his new employment necessitates reconsideration, the lengthy rulings were
4
based on an extensive record and were presumably begun well prior to any alleged conflict. As
noted by Defendants Sullivan and Maynard, Judge McLaughlin had nearly completed his
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in May, well before he accepted other employment.
(“[the Court is] on the home stretch of completing rather extensive findings of fact and
conclusions of law on the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions - - as a follow up to the hearing on that
and you should be receiving that opinion shortly.)” Doc. No. 304-4. Plaintiff’s argument
regarding timing is tenuous and unsupported by the record. A reasonable person would
conclude, based upon the entire record, that Judge McLaughlin had been considering the merits
of Plaintiff’s Motions since they were filed in 2010 and 2011, considered the factual support
after extensive hearings, and completed his rulings based upon the voluminous record prior to
leaving the bench because he was familiar to the case. To argue otherwise is to do so without
support.
In sum, Plaintiff is dissatisfied with Judge McLaughlin’s unfavorable decisions. Such
dissatisfaction with Judge McLaughlin presiding over the matter appears to be long-standing and
was addressed by Judge McLaughlin. Doc. No. 232. This Court’s review of the extensive
docket, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or Recusal, and Judge McLaughlin’s Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law supports a finding that a reasonable person would not question
Judge McLaughlin’s impartiality. To the contrary, he had presided over this case for a great
amount of time and had begun his ruling on Plaintiff’s Motions well before accepting outside
employment. The reasonable conclusion, supported by the complete record, is that his
unfavorable decision just prior to leaving the bench was in order to complete pending matters
before he stepped down, rather than an attempt to appease a law firm with which his new
5
employer has a relationship. This Court finds no reason to disturb Judge McLaughlin’s thorough
rulings.
IV.
Order
AND NOW, this 19th day of September, 2013, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (Doc. No. 299) is DENIED;
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 299) is DENIED; and
3.
The Clerk of Court shall mark this CASE CLOSED.
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
cc:
All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties
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?