Georgelas v. Hill et al
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order denying 49 Motion to Disqualify Judge. Neither Hill nor the Hill Defendants have shown sufficient grounds upon which an objective observer would question the impartiality of the undersigned. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 05/06/2022. (jl)
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.387 Page 1 of 20
______
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
TAMMY B. GEORGELAS, as Receiver for
ROGER S. BLISS, an individual; and
ROGER S. BLISS d/b/a ROGER BLISS
AND ASSOCIATES EQUITIES, LLC, a
Utah limited liability company; ROGER
BLISS AND ASSOCIATES CLUB LLC;
and BLISS CLUB LLC,
JOINT MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
DISQUALIFY
Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
Plaintiff,
2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO
v.
JAMES MICHAEL HILL, JR., et al.,
Defendants.
TAMMY B. GEORGELAS, as Receiver for
ROGER S. BLISS, an individual; and
ROGER S. BLISS d/b/a ROGER BLISS
AND ASSOCIATES EQUITIES, LLC, a
Utah limited liability company; ROGER
BLISS AND ASSOCIATES CLUB LLC;
and BLISS CLUB LLC;
2:21-cv-00667-RJS-DAO
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID HILL,
Defendant.
Plaintiff in these cases is Tammy B. Georgelas, the Court-Appointed Receiver for Roger
S. Bliss; Roger Bliss and Associates Equities, LLC; Roger Bliss and Associates Club LLC; and
Bliss Club LLC (collectively, the Bliss Enterprise). The two above-captioned cases arise from
the Receiver’s efforts to pursue judgments obtained in ancillary cases against two net winners in
1
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.388 Page 2 of 20
Bliss’s scheme: Desert Hill Ventures, Inc. and Spring Grove Investments, LLC. In both cases,
Defendants have filed Motions to Disqualify seeking the recusal of the undersigned.1 For the
reasons explained below, both Motions are DENIED.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2
I.
The Main Receivership Case and Appointment of the Receiver
This case arises from Roger Bliss’s Ponzi scheme, in which he created the illusion he
profitably traded Apple stock while in fact transferring funds from old investors to new investors
to perpetuate the scheme.3 On February 11, 2015, the SEC filed a Complaint against Bliss in
SEC v. Bliss (hereinafter the Main Receivership Case).4 Bliss eventually pleaded guilty to
securities fraud and a pattern of unlawful activity.5
On June 10, 2015, to protect Bliss’s assets and the assets of entities abused by him, the
court appointed the Receiver.6 In the intervening years, the size of Bliss’s Ponzi scheme was
learned to be significantly larger than expected at the outset of the Receivership. At the outset, it
1
Georgelas v. Hill et al., No. 2:21-cv-00441, Dkt. 49 (Motion to Disqualify Judge); Georgelas v. Hill, No. 2:21-cv00667, Dkt. 14 (Motion to Disqualify Judge).
The court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts of Bliss’s Ponzi scheme given the age and
procedural posture of this longstanding case. For a fuller discussion of these underlying facts, see SEC v. Bliss, No.
2:15-cv-00098 [hereinafter Main Receivership Case], Dkt. 241 (Memorandum Decision and Order Granting the
Receiver’s Motion) at 1–3; Georgelas v. Desert Hill Ventures, No. 2:16-cv-00514, Dkt. 38 (Joint Memorandum
Decision and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment) at 2–5. Similarly, the court assumes the
parties’ familiarity with the procedural history of the Main Receivership Case as well as the relevant ancillary suits.
The court will only rehearse the procedural history relevant to the instant Motions to Disqualify.
2
3
See Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 1 (Complaint) ¶¶ 1–3; 11–30.
4
See id.
5
See Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 129 (Consent to Entry of Judgment). Bliss also pleaded guilty in state court to
four second degree securities fraud felonies and one second degree pattern of unlawful activity. See Main
Receivership Case, Dkt. 128 (Notice of Judgment, Sentence, and Commitment of Roger S. Bliss). Earlier in the
proceedings, Bliss was held in contempt of court for making false statements in a sworn declaration. See Main
Receivership Case, Dkt. 84 (Memorandum Decision and Order).
6
Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 39 (Order Granting Motion to Appoint Receiver). Following extensive litigation
concerning a standing issue raised by Defendants including David Hill, the court modified its Order Appointing a
Receiver, clarifying the Receiver has standing to pursue lawsuits against net winners. See Main Receivership Case,
Dkt. 241 (Memorandum Decision and Order Granting the Receiver’s Motion).
2
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.389 Page 3 of 20
was believed the Receivership Defendants had losses of approximately $3,300,000 owed to
about forty investors. Following extensive investigation by the SEC and the Receivership, it was
learned losses exceeded $21,000,000 and affected over 150 investors.7
II.
Ancillary Suits Against David Hill, Desert Hill Industries Inc., and Spring Grove
Investments, LLC
In multiple civil suits, the Receiver has sought to recoup money she alleges Bliss caused
abused entities to distribute to established investors. Relevant here, the Receiver brought suits
against David Hill,8 Desert Hill Ventures, Inc.,9 and Spring Grove Investments, LLC.10 The
Receiver alleged all three were net winners, that is, they had received payments from the Bliss
Enterprise in excess of the amount they had invested.11 Specifically, Desert Hill had been hired
by Bliss to perform administrative and ministerial services for the Bliss Enterprise, and received
a total of $317,000 in a series of monthly payments.12 David Hill, as president of Desert Hill,
worked full time for the Bliss Enterprise and, in addition to payments made to Desert Hill, was
directly compensated $30,000 for his services and received remodeling work on his home paid
7
See, e.g., Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 317 (Notice of Seventh Application for Interim Compensation of Receiver
and Professionals) ¶¶ 7–8.
8
See Georgelas v. Hill, No. 2:16-cv-00522, Dkt. 2 (Complaint).
9
See Georgelas v. Desert Hill Ventures, No. 2:16-cv-00514, Dkt. 2 (Complaint).
10
See Georgelas v. Spring Grove Investments, No. 2:16-cv-00534, Dkt. 2 (Complaint).
11
See Georgelas v. Desert Hill, No. 2:16-cv-00514, Dkt. 2 (Complaint) ¶¶ 21–24; Georgelas v. Hill, No. 2:16-cv00522, Dkt. 2 (Complaint) ¶¶ 21–24; Georgelas v. Spring Grove Investments, No. 2:16-cv-00534, Dkt. 2
(Complaint) ¶¶ 21–24.
12
See Georgelas v. Desert Hill, No. 2:16-cv-00514, Dkt. 38 (Joint Memorandum Decision and Order Granting
Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment) at 4–5.
3
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.390 Page 4 of 20
for by Bliss.13 Spring Grove is a Texas limited liability company14 which received substantial
returns from its investments in the Bliss Enterprise.15
On November 30, 2020, the undersigned granted summary judgment to the Receiver
against Spring Grove, finding that the Bliss Enterprise was a Ponzi scheme and that Spring
Grove received fraudulent transfers from Bliss as defined by the Utah Fraudulent Transfer Act
(UFTA).16 On January 4, 2021, the undersigned granted summary judgment to the Receiver
against both David Hill and Desert Hill in a Joint Memorandum Decision and Order, again
finding that the Bliss enterprise was a Ponzi scheme, and that both David Hill and Desert Hill
received fraudulent transfers as defined by the UFTA.17 In granting summary judgment against
David Hill and Desert Hill, the court assumed—without making factual findings on the issue—
that David Hill had acted in good faith.18 Nonetheless, because the Ponzi presumption applied,
the court found that because the transfers from Bliss to Hill had not been exchanged for
“reasonably equivalent value,” the transfers were fraudulent under the UFTA.19
Following the summary judgment rulings, the court entered Orders of Final Judgment
against Desert Hill in the total amount of $356,552.13,20 David Hill in the total amount of
13
Id. at 5.
14
See Georgelas v. Spring Grove Investments, No. 2:16-cv-00534, Dkt. 2 (Complaint) ¶ 4.
15
See Georgelas v. Spring Grove Investments, No. 2:16-cv-00534, Dkt. 43 (Memorandum Decision and Order
Granting Motion for Summary Judgment) at 5.
16
See id.
17
See Georgelas v. Desert Hill Ventures, No. 2:16-cv-00514, Dkt. 38 (Joint Memorandum Decision and Order
Granting Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment); see also Georgelas v. Hill, No. 2:16-cv-00522, Dkt. 36 (Joint
Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment).
18
Georgelas v. Desert Hill Ventures, No. 2:16-cv-00514, Dkt. 38 (Joint Memorandum Decision and Order Granting
Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment) at 19.
19
Id. at 18–23.
20
Georgelas v. Desert Hill Ventures, No. 2:16-cv-00514, Dkt. 46 (Final Judgment).
4
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.391 Page 5 of 20
$161,327.13,21 and Spring Grove in the total amount of $879,150.82.22 The court subsequently
ordered the Receiver to undertake any collection efforts on the judgments in the Main
Receivership Case.23
III.
Supplemental Proceedings Against David Hill, Desert Hill, and Spring Grove
On March 11, 2021, the Receiver moved for supplemental proceedings in the Main
Receivership Case to obtain discovery concerning the assets of David Hill, Desert Hill, and
Spring Grove.24 The Receiver further moved to enjoin those parties from transferring or
alienating any of their assets.25 David Hill and Desert Hill filed a combined opposition to the
Receiver’s motions,26 and Spring Grove filed its own opposition.27 Following additional
briefing,28 Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett granted the Receiver’s Motions in part.29
Specifically, Judge Bennett granted the portion of the Receiver’s Motions requesting hearings
and the production of documents as to David Hill’s, Desert Hill’s, and Spring Grove’s respective
assets, but denied them without prejudice insofar as they sought to preclude the parties from
transferring or alienating their assets.30
21
Georgelas v. Hill, No. 2:16-cv-00522, Dkt. 44 (Final Judgment).
22
Georgelas v. Spring Hill Investments, No. 2:16-cv-00534, Dkt. 44 (Final Judgment).
23
See Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 273 (Docket Text Order).
24
Main Receivership Case, Dkts. 269, 270, 271 (Motions for Supplemental Proceedings).
25
See, e.g., Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 269 (Motion for Supplemental Proceedings) at 7.
Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 272 (David Hill and Desert Hill Ventures, Inc.’s Verified Opposition to Receiver’s
Motions).
26
27
Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 290 (Response to Receiver’s Motion).
Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 277 (Receiver’s Reply in Support of Supplemental Proceedings); Dkt. 282 (David
Hill and Desert Hill’s Objection to Evidence Submitted in Receiver’s Reply Memorandum); Dkt. 287 (David Hill
and Desert Hill’s Sur-Reply).
28
29
Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 294 (Memorandum Decision and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Motions for Supplemental Proceedings).
30
Id. at 5–7.
5
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.392 Page 6 of 20
Subsequently, supplemental proceedings and debtor examinations were scheduled for
Desert Hill31 and Spring Grove,32 to take place on May 26 and May 27, 2021, respectively. The
court ordered Desert Hill and Spring Grove to produce, “no later than 14 days prior to the
hearing date,” all of their “financial books and records, however maintained (e.g., QuickBooks,
Sage, etc.) in original file format, including all metadata, cumulative for the six years prior to the
date of entry of the Judgment.”33 Meanwhile, the Receiver and David Hill reached an agreement
to stay enforcement of the judgment against David Hill,34 with a deed of trust over Hill’s home
used as an alternative to a bond,35 and the court vacated the supplemental proceeding against
David Hill.36
IV.
Zoom Status Conference Concerning Supplemental Proceedings
On May 25, 2021, the day before the Desert Hill supplemental proceeding was set to take
place, the court became aware there was a problem with one of the files produced by Desert Hill
in advance of the proceeding. Specifically, the court came to understand that the QuickBooks
file containing Desert Hill’s accounting records had been produced late, and apparently in a
31
Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 300 (Order for Supplemental Proceedings and Debtor Examination Against Desert
Hill Ventures, Inc.).
32
Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 297 (Order for Supplemental Proceedings and Debtor Examination Against Spring
Grove Investments, LLC).
33
See, e.g., Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 300 (Order for Supplemental Proceedings and Debtor Examination
Against Desert Hill Ventures, Inc.) ¶ 2.
34
Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 302 (Stipulation re: Trust Deed to Secure Judgment in Lieu of Posting Bond Under
Rule 62).
35
Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 303 (Order Granting Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment Against David Hill).
36
Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 299 (Order Vacating Supplemental Proceeding re: David Hill).
6
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.393 Page 7 of 20
format in which the metadata had been stripped out.37 The court convened an emergency status
conference that same day to discuss the issue.38
At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the Receiver stated that, instead of producing
the past six years of financial books and records in native format, Desert Hill had produced an
Excel spreadsheet that referenced a payment for QuickBooks, indicating QuickBooks was Desert
Hill’s accounting software, but a QuickBooks file had not been produced. When asked to
provide the full QuickBooks file, Desert Hill had sent a file format which appeared to contain an
extract or printout of a QuickBooks file, but not the full file with all the metadata.39
In response to the Receiver’s concern that the QuickBooks file had not been provided in a
native file format and without metadata, the court stated the following:
It is crucially important, which is why I want the data in native format. So thank
you. You had more to say. But if it’s about the importance of getting the data in
native format, I’m already with you. If you had something more to say unrelated
to that, I have a question for [the Receiver’s expert] Mr. Gomez. And I think
what I’m doing giving [counsel for Desert Hill] Mr. Christiansen and Mr. Hill the
benefit of the doubt, Mr. Hill the benefit of the doubt, what I hope I’m doing is
facilitating a conversation to move us to the point where we need to be. Let me
just emphasize my two priorities in this dispute. They are, first, the integrity of
the data. We’re going to ensure that we have data, reliable and complete data in a
format we can utilize. Second, the efficiency of this process for out of concern
for the expense to the Receivership estate. And every lost hour is an hour that
costs our victims in this case. And Mr. Hill may or may not be among those in
some fashion, but there are victims in this case who are not going to be further
victimized by Mr. Hill. Mr. Fortney went to jail in this case because he made
misrepresentations about facts. I’m not afraid to make referrals to the US
Attorney’s Office if we get to a point where people have misrepresented what’s
happened or what the facts are. And so I’m not jumping ahead to anything. I just
want to be clear. We’re going to have native format information in this case.
And if there is evidence that people are manipulating data, that’s going to be a
37
The court does not remember how it became aware, before the emergency hearing, of this issue. Prior to the
hearing, it understood the Receiver’s position to be that its expert determined Desert Hill had removed metadata
from the produced QuickBooks files.
38
Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 305 (Amended Notice of Zoom Hearing Regarding Supplemental Proceedings).
39
Main Receivership Case, Dkt. 314 (Transcript of Zoom Status Conference held on 5/25/21) [hereinafter Hearing
Transcript] at 4:6–6:20.
7
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.394 Page 8 of 20
real problem. I’m not going to infer that, though the record with Mr. Hill and his
company’s compliance with requests to the [R]eceiver is not exemplary to this
point. So I’m really not making – I’m not jumping to any conclusions. I just
want to make sure everybody understands the gravity of the next moment.40
Immediately after, the Receiver’s expert joined the Zoom call. The court stated the
following:
I’m not going to place you under oath. But will you help me and Mr.
Christiansen? Mr. Christiansen is stuck in the same spot we’re stuck in. He’s
trying to comply with a court order, and we need some clarity about what we
have; whether it’s in compliance with my order; and if it’s not how it can become
in compliance with my order. Can you help us understand that? And then, Mr.
Christiansen, you can respond, you can ask Mr. Gomez questions. This is an open
format.41
Following a discussion concerning how QuickBooks files are exported from different
operating systems, it became clear the issue had to do with Desert Hill producing a QuickBooks
file from a Mac computer that was not compatible with Windows.42 The court confirmed: “So if
Mr. Christiansen exports the same file he’s produced to you but in a format compatible with
Windows, does that give you access to everything you need?”43 Following more discussion
about the difference between QuickBooks files on Mac versus Windows, as opposed to an Excel
file, the court stated:
I think we are just having a miscommunication. I’m hoping that that’s correct.
I’m becoming confident that’s correct. If the Live version of QuickBooks for
Mac is essentially what we need but in the wrong format this is a simple solution.
So let’s resolve this question before we get to the question about the examination,
because I agree with Mr. Christiansen. There’s numerous reasons to have an
examination once and not twice. That’s the expense associated with this for
everyone involved. Mr. Christiansen, do you need any more information from
40
Id. at 11:21–13:4.
41
Id. at 13:7–13:15.
42
Id. at 13:16–14:13.
43
Id. at 14:14–14:16.
8
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.395 Page 9 of 20
Mr. Gomez to just replicate the production you’ve made but in a different
format?44
Mr. Christiansen stated he had enough information but needed time to review the file once it had
been properly exported before sending it.45 The court then stated:
Mr. Christiansen, I’m satisfied that Mr. Hill, Desert Hill Ventures and Mr.
Christiansen have attempted to comply once they were notified on Friday that
there was an issue with the format. And now what we have is they have literally
produced it in the format in which it’s kept. And now we need a modification.
Mr. Christiansen, you need time to make the conversion and then review it in
whatever way you need to satisfy yourself, as an attorney that’s responsible, and
then provide it to the [R]eceiver’s counsel with sufficient time for the [R]eceiver
and the [R]eceiver’s expert to examine the data to adequately prepare for an
effective examination.46
Confirming there were no clarification questions from Mr. Christiansen, the court asked
counsel for the Receiver if he had any additional questions. Counsel stated, “I feel that Desert
Hill knew that it kept its books in QuickBooks in May and prior to that and should have
produced its QuickBooks files before I brought it up, having just found that in the ledger that
they had paid for QuickBooks.”47 So, before moving on to rescheduling the supplemental
proceeding to allow time for the production of the correct file format, the court asked:
Let’s wrap up one other question in my mind before I get too carried away with
complimenting everyone on their work. I infer from something that you said in
your preliminary comments do you think there’s not been – what I actually infer
is you think there’s been an attempt to conceal a source of data that you’ve
requested from a tax preparer. Did I just come to the bench feeling like there was
evil in the world and I was determined to rule it out, or were you trying to suggest
something like that?48
Counsel for the Receiver replied:
44
Id. at 15:6–15:17.
45
Id. at 15:18–16:11.
46
Id. at 16:12–16:23.
47
Id. at 17:4–17:8.
48
Id. at 17:10–17:18.
9
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.396 Page 10 of 20
Maybe some from Column A and some from Column B. I don’t know, Your
Honor. I have – I can’t speak to someone else’s motivation. I just know that your
order was not exactly complied with. I do not know with absolute certainty what
was produced to the tax preparers, and I won’t know unless either Mr.
Christiansen’s client represents to me that he has produced the exact files that
were produced to the tax preparers or I subpoena the tax preparers. But I will take
his representation that he’s produced the actual files that were produced to the tax
preparers if that’s what he’s representing.49
The court replied:
Maybe we’re getting ahead of ourselves. I think that seems like part of the
purpose of the examination that you’re going to have once you have the
QuickBooks files. You’ll be able to see what the entries are, and Mr. Hill will be
available and under oath to answer questions about what they represent, what was
provided, when, to whom, what was done. So unless there’s something more that
we need to accomplish it seems to me that we need to get the data from Mr.
Christiansen to review and to you and your expert and then the examination.50
Following this discussion, the parties and the court amended the date of the supplemental
proceeding. Before the close of the hearing, counsel for Desert Hill stated:
Your Honor, I’m troubled by what the court said about my client’s history of
compliance in this case. I don’t know if the court is referring to something on my
watch, but I would certainly hope not. I have tried since my entry to make sure
that he and his business comply with anything and everything the court has
ordered. If there’s been an oversight on my part then I apologize. But I don’t
want this record to sit here with me being quiet with the court saying that my
clients have not been compliant to something. I’m frankly not sure what the
court’s referring to.51
The court responded:
So that’s totally fair. I appreciate that, Mr. Christiansen. And I’m sure I came to
the bench with some preconceived ideas about what had preceded this hearing in
terms of compliance, and I appreciate your responses. And in terms – as you
know, I think you know, we’ve had issues in this case, multiple issues with
multiple people. I do have a general – one moment. I had a general perception
that Mr. Hill and some of the Bliss family members have been less than
cooperative and less than, I’m going to say less than fully cooperative. I was
going to say less than fully candid, but I’m not sure about that. I don’t really
49
Id. at 17:19–18:4.
50
Id. at 18:5–18:13.
51
Id. at 23:1–23:11.
10
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.397 Page 11 of 20
know that. I just have a general concern about what I view as sort of a pattern of
delay and erecting barriers which have increased the time and expense of this
litigation and this receivership in a way that has been unhelpful. So I’m sure that
some of that is background noise. I don’t have coming to the bench anything
specific in mind about Mr. Hill or his – I know of his company’s compliance with
my orders since you entered an appearance. Just a general concern, and I’m sure I
overshot with my comments early on. But I wanted to make sure I had
everyone’s full attention about the court’s orders and my conviction that the
receiver was going to have access to whatever information we needed to have
access to so we could get the right result. I appreciate you raising the issue, Mr.
Christiansen.52
The supplemental proceeding as to Desert Hill was subsequently held on July 1, 2021.53
V.
The Above-Captioned Ancillary Suits and Motions to Disqualify
The above-captioned cases were filed by the Receiver as part of her efforts to enforce the
judgments against Desert Hill and Spring Grove. On July 20, 2021, the Receiver filed the first of
the above-captioned cases, Georgelas v. Hill et al., against Defendants James Michael Hill, Jr.,
David Hill, Lauren Hill, Cynthia Goosby, Penelope Hill, and the estate of James Michael Hill Sr.
(hereinafter Hill Defendants).54 The Receiver alleges the Hill Defendants are alter egos of
Spring Grove, and that Spring Grove served only as a conduit for the distribution of fraudulent
transfers from the Bliss Enterprise to the Hill Defendants.55 The Receiver seeks to avoid
fraudulent transfers and constructive transfers made from Spring Grove to the Hill Defendants
and to amend the judgment against Spring Grove to make the Hill Defendants jointly and
severally liable.56
52
Id. at 23:12–24:11.
53
See Underlying Receivership Case, Dkt. 309 (Transcript of Webex Debtor Examination).
54
Georgelas v. Hill et al., No. 2:21-cv-00441, Dkt. 2 (Complaint).
55
Id. ¶¶ 12–19.
56
Id. ¶¶ 54–96.
11
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.398 Page 12 of 20
On November 10, 2021, the Receiver filed the second above-captioned case, Georgelas v.
Hill, against David Hill, alleging he is the alter ego of Desert Hill and seeking to enforce the
judgment obtained against Desert Hill through David Hill.57
On November 16, 2021, the Receiver filed a Motion to Transfer Georgelas v. Hill to the
undersigned.58 On January 10, 2022, the Receiver filed a Motion to Transfer Georgelas v. Hill et
al. to the undersigned.59 In both Motions, the Receiver noted that all ancillary suits related to the
Underlying Receivership Case have been transferred to the undersigned since the outset, for
judicial economy.60 David Hill opposed the Motion to Transfer Georgelas v. Hill, not on the
basis of the factors concerning the transfer of cases61 but rather because the court’s comments at
the May 25, 2021 emergency status conference “can reasonably be viewed as calling the Court’s
impartiality into question” under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).62
On January 19, 2022, the court granted the Motion to Transfer Georgelas v. Hill.63 In
granting the Motion, the court acknowledged it did so over the objection of David Hill,
explaining that the statute relevant to disqualifying a judge, § 455(a), would only be applicable
were the case before the undersigned.64 Receiving no opposition to the second Motion to
Transfer, the court granted that Motion on February 14, 2022.65
57
Georgelas v. Hill, No. 2:21-cv-00667, Dkt. 2 (Complaint).
58
Underlying Receivership Case, Dkt. 311 (Motion for Transfer of New Ancillary Case Against David Hill).
59
Underlying Receivership Case, Dkt. 319 (Motion for Transfer of New Ancillary Case Against James Michael
Hill., Jr., et al.).
See id. at 4; see also Underlying Receivership Case, Dkt. 171 (Order Granting Receiver’s Motion to Transfer
Cases).
60
61
See DUCivR 83-2(g).
62
Underlying Receivership Case, Dkt. 320 (Opposition to Motion to Transfer) at 7.
63
Underlying Receivership Case, Dkt. 321 (Order Granting Motion for Transfer of Case No. 2:21-cv-00667).
64
Id. at 2 n.2.
65
Underlying Receivership Case, Dkt. 322 (Order Granting Motion for Transfer of Case No. 2:21-cv-00441).
12
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.399 Page 13 of 20
On January 27, 2022, David Hill filed a Motion to Disqualify in Georgelas v. Hill,
arguing the undersigned’s comments in the May 25, 2021 hearing created the appearance of
bias.66 Similarly, on March 8, 2022, the Hill Defendants filed a Motion to Disqualify in
Georgelas v. Hill et al., also based on the undersigned’s comments at the May 25 hearing.67 The
court turns to the parties’ arguments.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Section 455(a), “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall
disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.”68 Section 455 is meant “to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even
the appearance of impropriety whenever possible.”69 It sets forth an objective standard under
which disqualification is appropriate where “the reasonable person, were he to know all the
circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality.”70 “In conducting this
review, we must ask how these facts would appear to a well-informed, thoughtful and objective
observer, rather than the hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious person.”71
A judge has a “continuing duty to recuse before, during, or, in some circumstances, after
a proceeding, if the judge concludes that sufficient factual grounds exist to cause an objective
observer reasonably to question the judge’s impartiality.”72 However, “[t]here is as much
66
Georgelas v. Hill, No. 2:21-cv-00667, Dkt. 14 (Motion to Disqualify Judge).
67
Georgelas v. Hill et al., No. 2:21-cv-00441, Dkt. 49 (Motion to Disqualify Judge).
68
28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
69
Mathis v. Huff & Puff Trucking, Inc., 787 F.3d 1297, 1310 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted).
70
Id. (internal citation omitted).
71
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
72
United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 992 (10th Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted).
13
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.400 Page 14 of 20
obligation for a judge not to recuse when there is no occasion for him to do so as there is for him
to do so when there is.”73
Indeed, “[r]umor, speculation, beliefs, conclusions, innuendo, suspicion, opinion and
similar non-factual matters” are “not ordinarily sufficient to require § 455(a) recusal.”74 Neither
are “prior rulings in the proceeding, or another proceeding, solely because they were adverse.”75
Rather, “outward manifestations and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom” are relevant in this
inquiry, and “the judge’s actual state of mind, purity of heart, incorruptibility, or lack of
partiality are not the issue.”76 This analysis under § 455(a) “is extremely fact driven,” meaning
cases “must be judged on their unique facts and circumstances more than by comparison to
situations considered in prior jurisprudence.”77
ANALYSIS
Although two separate Motions to Disqualify are before the court, as discussed below,
the Motions put forth identical arguments. Accordingly, the court considers the Motions
together.
In Georgelas v. Hill, David Hill seeks to disqualify the undersigned “because of grave
concerns about the Court’s appearance of partiality toward him stemming from the hearing held
73
Hinman v. Rogers, 831 F.2d 937, 939 (10th Cir. 1987) (internal citations omitted). Indeed, the Tenth Circuit has
stressed: “section 455(a) must not be so broadly construed that it becomes, in effect, presumptive, so that recusal is
mandated upon the merest unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or prejudice. The statute is not intended to
give litigants a veto power over sitting judges, or a vehicle for obtaining a judge of their choice.” Cooley, 1 F.3d at
993 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
74
Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 351 (10th Cir. 1995).
75
Id.
76
Id. (citing Cooley, 1 F.3d at 993).
77
Id. (internal citation omitted).
14
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.401 Page 15 of 20
on May 25, 2021.”78 Hill identifies the following two comments from the emergency status
conference as indicative of partiality:
1. And Mr. Hill may or may not be among those [victims of the Bliss scheme] in some
fashion, but there are victims in this case who are not going to be further victimized by
Mr. Hill. Mr. Fortney went to jail in this case because he made misrepresentations about
facts. I’m not afraid to make referrals to the U.S. Attorney’s Office if we get to a point
where people have misrepresented what’s happened or what the facts are.79
2. And I’m sure I came to the bench with some preconceived ideas about what had preceded
this hearing in terms of compliance, and I appreciate your responses. And in terms – as
you know, I think you know, we’ve had issues in this case, multiple issues with multiple
people . . . I had a general perception that Mr. Hill and some of the Bliss family members
have been less than cooperative and less than, I’m going to say less than fully
cooperative. I was going to say less than fully candid but I’m not sure about that. I don’t
really know that. I just have a general concern about what I view as sort of a pattern of
delay and erecting barriers which have increased the time and expense of this litigation
and this receivership in a way that has been unhelpful.80
Hill argues that “[t]here is no history of [him] failing to comply with Court orders, obstructing
the administration of any case, or being found to have committed any wrongdoing.”81 Hill also
argues that in the court’s Summary Judgment Order, it used an analysis assuming that Hill acted
at all times in good faith.82 Hill avers that the hearing was “occasioned by counsel for the
Receiver not understanding what their own expert was telling them about production while
rejecting accurate representations made by Mr. Hill and his counsel about the issue.”83 Hill
argues that the court has “put a ‘black hat’ on [him] and considered him one of the ‘bad guys’ in
78
Georgelas v. Hill, No. 2:21-cv-00667, Dkt. 14 (Motion to Disqualify Judge) at 2. Additionally, Hill argues that
because his counsel has “represented other defendants in ancillary proceedings, including some of the Bliss family
members as well as Mr. Steve Devereaux, who both the Court and the Receiver have blamed for delaying the
receivership proceeding after he raised a legitimate Article III standing issue,” id. at 4–5, the court’s comments
implicate Hill’s counsel as well as Hill, id. at 6–7.
79
Id. at 4 (citing Hearing Transcript at 12:12–12:19).
80
Id. (citing Hearing Transcript at 23:13–24:1).
81
Id.
82
Id.
83
Id.
15
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.402 Page 16 of 20
the case, going so far as to include [him] in the category of individuals who victimized others
and implying jail time for what amounted to a misunderstanding.”84 He concludes: “The court’s
comments can reasonably be viewed as calling the Court’s impartiality into question, or at the
very least question the appearance of impartiality and propriety in the proceedings.”85
The Hill Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify, filed in Georgelas v. Hill et al., is
functionally identical to the Motion filed in Georgelas v. Hill. The Hill Defendants’ Motion
identifies the same two comments made at the May 25, 2021 hearing,86 and argues that because
of the comments, “the Court expressly stated its preconceived negative view of [David] Hill.”87
The Hill Defendants similarly conclude that the court’s comments “can reasonably be viewed as
calling the Court’s impartiality into question, or at the very least question the appearance of
impartiality and propriety in the proceedings against [David] Hill.”88 The Hill Defendants do not
argue the court’s comments suggest bias toward the Defendants aside from David Hill.89
The court disagrees that its comments, in context, create the appearance of partiality
toward David Hill or create the appearance of impropriety. As an initial matter, the court notes
both comments relate to impressions gained during proceedings, not opinions derived from
extrajudicial sources.90 The Tenth Circuit has explained that “[o]rdinarily, when a judge’s words
84
Id. at 6.
85
Id. at 7.
86
Georgelas v. Hill et al., No. 2:21-cv-00441, Dkt. 49 (Motion to Disqualify Judge) at 3–4 (citing Hearing
Transcript at 12:12–12:19, 23:13–24:1).
87
Id. at 5.
88
Id. at 6.
89
See generally id.
90
Under the extrajudicial source doctrine, recusal may be appropriate where a judge bases his opinion on events
occurring outside of the proceedings, whereas opinions deriving from within proceedings will “sometimes (albeit
rarely) suffice” for recusal. See United States v. Liteky, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994). Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit
has found recusal necessary where a judge shared his opinion on events related to a pending case on “Nightline,” a
national television program, Cooley, 1 F.3d at 990, and where a judge presided over the criminal trial of a coconspirator in the Oklahoma City Bombing when his own chambers had been damaged in the attack, Nichols, 71
16
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.403 Page 17 of 20
or actions are motivated by events originating within the context of judicial proceedings, they are
insulated from charges of bias.”91 As such, “opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts
introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings,
do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated
favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”92 The court’s comments at
the May 25, 2021 hearing, taken in context, did neither.
The full context of the first comment was the court sharing its preliminary views about
the issue that had necessitated the emergency hearing.93 The court emphasized the gravity of the
Receiver’s concern surrounding Desert Hill’s apparent failure to comply with the court’s
Order,94 especially given the complex past procedural history of the Receivership Case,
including the fact referrals had been made to the U.S. Attorney’s Office when other parties failed
to comply with court orders.95 The court’s comment that “there are victims in this case who are
not going to be further victimized by Mr. Hill” followed from the statement counsel for the
Receiver had just made that Desert Hill had apparently failed to comply with the Court’s order,
and served to remind the parties that the ultimate goal of the Receivership was to compensate
victims of the Bliss scheme. These initial comments enabled the parties to focus on the issue at
F.3d at 349–50. In both cases, the Tenth Circuit explained these extrajudicial sources of opinion would cause a
reasonable observer to doubt the judge’s impartiality, regardless of how impartially the judge had conducted the
proceedings. Cooley, 1 F.3d at 995; Nichols, 71 F.3d at 552.
91
United States v. Nickl, 427 F.3d 1286, 1298 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Liteky, 510 U.S. at 554–56).
92
Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
93
See Hearing Transcript at 11:21–13:4.
94
Underlying Receivership Case, Dkt. 300 (Order for Supplemental Proceedings).
95
Hearing Transcript at 12:15–12:19; see also Underlying Receivership Case, Dkt. 84 (Memorandum Decision and
Order) (making referral to U.S. Attorney’s Office).
17
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.404 Page 18 of 20
hand—determining how to ensure Desert Hill would comply with the court’s Order—and
identify why compliance had not yet been achieved.
Additionally, to the extent these preliminary comments expressed any impatience or tone
of warning, that would not establish bias: “Not establishing bias or partiality . . . are expressions
of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger, that are within the bounds of what
imperfect men and women, even after having been confirmed as federal judges, sometimes
display. A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—even a stern and shorttempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—remain immune.”96 In other
words, the court “did not display a deep-seated antagonism which would make fair judgment
impossible.”97 It simply made the context and gravity of the emergency hearing clear. A
reasonable person, accounting for all these circumstances, would not harbor doubt about the
court’s impartiality.98
The context of the second comment was the court responding to Desert Hill’s counsel’s
concern about the first comment. The court explained the comments at the opening of the
hearing were preliminary views and concerns based on the past record in the case, and stated the
court “had a general perception that Mr. Hill and some of the Bliss family members have been
less than . . . fully cooperative,” and added it had “a general concern” about “a pattern of delay
and erecting barriers which have increased the time and expense of this litigation and this
receivership in a way that has been unhelpful.”99 The court immediately clarified: “I don’t have
96
Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555–56.
97
Id. at 555.
Similarly, to the extent Hill’s counsel argues the comments reflect bias against him, taken in their entire context,
the objective observer would not find reason to doubt the court’s impartiality. In fact, the court stated multiple times
during the hearing that it understood Mr. Christiansen was doing everything in his power to help his client comply
with the court’s Order. See Hearing Transcript at 13:7–13:12, 15:6–15:14, 16:6–16:25.
98
99
Hearing Transcript 23:18–24:1.
18
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.405 Page 19 of 20
coming to the bench anything specific in mind about Mr. Hill or his – I know of his company’s
compliance with my orders since you entered an appearance. Just a general concern, and I’m
sure I overshot with my comments early on. But I wanted to make sure I had everyone’s full
attention about the court’s orders and my conviction that the [R]eceiver was going to have access
to whatever information we needed to have access to so we could get the right result.”100 In
other words, as discussed above, the court had made preliminary comments to be clear about the
stakes of the hearing given the history of the case and the goals of the Receivership, but did not
express antagonism or bias toward Hill.
Moreover, the statement that Hill “had not been fully cooperative” reflected the court’s
understanding at the outset of the hearing that Desert Hill had not produced a QuickBooks file
with metadata intact, as the court’s Order for Supplemental Proceedings required Desert Hill to
do.101 While it became clear during the hearing that Hill was in compliance with the Order, at
the outset, that was not yet clear. All that was certain at the outset was that Hill had yet to fully
comply with the court’s Order, and the court wanted to ensure the parties were clear on the
consequences of not complying with an order given the history of the litigation. Again,
“opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course
of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or
partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make
fair judgment impossible.”102 An objective observer would not find deep-seated favoritism or
100
Id. at 24:3–24:10.
101
Underlying Receivership Case, Dkt. 300 (Order for Supplemental Proceedings) ¶ 2.
Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. The Supreme Court noted an example of impermissible bias was “the statement that was
alleged to have been made by the District Judge in Berger v. United States . . .a World War I espionage case against
German–American defendants: ‘One must have a very judicial mind, indeed, not [to be] prejudiced against the
German Americans’ because their ‘hearts are reeking with disloyalty.’” Id. (internal citation omitted). While
Section 455 motions are “extremely fact-driven” and must be decided on the basis of their own facts, not
circumstances of prior proceedings, Nichols, 71 F.3d at 351, the example illustrates that demonstrating “deep-seated
102
19
Case 2:21-cv-00441-RJS-DAO Document 58 Filed 05/06/22 PageID.406 Page 20 of 20
antagonism in comments accurately identifying what had happened in current proceedings and
explaining the court’s preliminary views in a way that enabled the parties to quickly resolve the
issue at hand.
At bottom, Hill takes issue with the court’s preliminary view of the compliance issue at
the May 25, 2021 emergency hearing, including statements about the stakes of noncompliance
with court orders which were highly relevant to the Receivership Case. But the court’s
preliminary statements at the start of the hearing were just that—preliminary statements intended
to invite argument on why the court’s initial view may be wrong. The court’s comments in this
case would not lead a reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts and circumstances, to
question the undersigned’s impartiality.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, neither Hill nor the Hill Defendants have shown
sufficient grounds upon which an objective observer would question the impartiality of the
undersigned. The Motions to Recuse103 are, accordingly, DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 6th day of May, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States Chief District Judge
favoritism or antagonism” is a high bar, one that the court’s stated concern about compliance with court orders does
not meet.
103
Georgelas v. Hill et al., No. 2:21-cv-00441, Dkt. 49; Georgelas v. Hill, No. 2:21-cv-00667, Dkt. 14.
20
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?