Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Atkinson et al

Filing 137

ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 133 MOTION for Recusal filed by Shannon L Atkinson is referred to Chief Judge Pechman for further consideration, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN)

Download PDF
1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 9 PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 v. CASE NO. C11-5299 RBL ORDER ON VARIOUS PRETRIAL MOTIONS [DKT. #s 127, 128, 133] CAROLYN ALLRED, 13 Defendant, 14 and 15 SHANNON L. ATKINSON, 16 Defendant. 17 THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following Motions: Allred’s Motion re Jury 18 Trial, Expert Witnesses and Release of Prudential Funds [Dkt. #127]; Defendant Atkinson’s 19 Motion for Extension of Time [Dkt. # 128] and Atkinson’s Motion for Recusal [Dkt. #133]. 20 Allred’s Motion asks the Court to reject Atkinson’s Jury Demand, filed January 31, 2013. 21 She asks the Court to preclude Atkinson’s from replacing one expert (Mr. Baggett) with another 22 (Ms. Christman), arguing that the limit is one expert per topic. Atkinson previously sought to 23 exclude Mr. Baggett. 24 ORDER ON VARIOUS PRETRIAL MOTIONS - 1 1 Allred finally asks the Court to release the Prudential insurance policy proceeds to her 2 because Atkinson has not posted the required supersedeas bond to stay the Court’s prior decision 3 pending appeal. Atkinson seeks a continuance of Allred’s Motions due to a broken wrist. 4 [Dkt. # 128]. 5 While the Court is not unsympathetic regarding Mr. Kombol’s injury, it has not 6 prevented him from filing pleadings and the issues raised are readily resolved. Additionally, 7 there are upcoming deadlines and an impending trial date. The Motion to Continue Allred’s 8 Motions [Dkt. #128] is DENIED. 9 Allred’s Motion to Strike Atkinson’s recently filed Jury Demand is GRANTED, not 10 because the claims raised are equitable, but because the alleged basis for it—bias—is untrue and 11 insufficient, and because the Jury Demand is not timely. See Lutz v. Glendale Union High 12 School, 403 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005). 13 Allred’s Motion regarding expert testimony is DENIED. It has not been shown that the 14 proposed testimony would be duplicative; it instead appears to be aimed at curing the defects in 15 Baggett’s testimony Atkinson raised in the past. 16 Allred’s Motion to Disburse due to the lack of supersedeas is DENIED; Atkinson claims 17 to have posted a cash alternative. 18 The final Motion is Atkinson’s Motion for Recusal. This Motion is based on 28 U.S.C. § 19 445, and Allred’s claim that the Court’s January 2, 2013, Order [Dkt. #114]. That Order 20 reiterated the Court’s prior ruling that Allred was entitled to the proceeds of the Prudential 21 insurance policy as a matter of law, and that the Court’s subsequent Order [See Dkt. # 91] 22 permitting Atkinson to Amend her Cross Claim against Allred was not intended to permit re23 litigation of that issue. 24 [DKT. #S 127, 128, 133] - 2 1 While the Order was worded strongly, it does not contain any appearance of bias, and it 2 certainly reflects no actual bias. It instead reflects the Court’s view of the case as gleaned from 3 hearing the evidence and arguments presented in this case. See Botts v. United States, 413 F.2d 4 41, 44 (9th Cir. 1969) (Unfavorable rulings are insufficient to require recusal). 5 Furthermore, The Court’s ruling does not and cannot reflect any risk that the Court 6 “might pre-judge the merits of Atkinson’s Cross Claim as to the proceeds of the Prudential 7 policy.” The Court had already ruled—months before—that Allred was entitled to those 8 proceeds. [See Dkt. # 54]. The Motion to Recuse is also untimely; the Order upon which it is 9 based was entered two months ago. 10 The Motion to Recuse is DENIED and the Court will not recuse itself voluntarily. The 11 Court will refer the motion to Chief Judge Pechman pursuant to GR 8(c). 12 Dated this 4th day of March, 2013. 14 A 15 RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [DKT. #S 127, 128, 133] - 3

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?