Gaskill et al v. Travelers Insurance Company, et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying 30 Motion to Disqualify; signed by Chief Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

KIM GASKILL,

11
12
13

CASE NO. C11-5847 RJB
Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY JUDGE

v.
TRAVELERS INSURANCE
COMPANY,

14
Defendant.
15
16
The Court, having received and reviewed:
17
18

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Disqualify Judge (Dkt. No. 30)
2. Order Declining Plaintiffs’ Motion to Disqualify Judge (Recuse) and Directing

19
Motion to Chief Judge Pursuant to W.D.WA. GR 8(C)
20
and all attached declarations and exhibits, makes the following ruling:
21
IT IS ORDERED the motion to disqualify is DENIED.
22
23
24
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE1

1

The standards for recusal are set forth in Judge Bryan’s order of January 3, 2012.

2 Although a judge must recuse himself if a reasonable person would believe that he is unable to
3 be impartial (Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993)), a litigant may
4

not use the recusal process to remove a judge based on adverse rulings in the pending case: the
alleged bias must result from an extrajudicial source (United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939

5
(9th Cir. 1986)).
6
7

This motion to disqualify arises out of Judge Bryan’s Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Remand. Dkt. No. 20. Plaintiffs claim that the order creates the impression that Judge Bryan

8 has “pre-judged a number of issues of importance in this case, including specifically issues of
9 personal jurisdiction.” Dkt. No. 30, p. 1. Plaintiffs allege that the Court reached its decision to
10 deny remand without reviewing their reply brief, and further assert that the Court held that
11 service on Defendants was invalid. Id., p. 3.
12
13

Initially, this Court finds that a review of the pleadings makes clear that (1) Judge Bryan
did review and respond to Plaintiffs’ reply briefing in his order (see Dkt. No. 20, pp. 1, 7-9), and
(2) the order at issue did not hold that service on the Defendants was invalid (merely that

14
Plaintiffs had the ultimate responsibility to identify the proper party Defendant; id.). More
15
16

significantly in the context of a motion to recuse, a judge’s conduct in the context of pending
judicial proceedings does not constitute the requisite bias under 28 U.S.C. § 144 or § 455 if it is

17 prompted solely by information that the judge received in the context of the performance of his
18 duties. Bias is almost never established simply because the judge issued an adverse ruling.
19

In order to overcome this presumption, Plaintiffs would have to show that facts outside

20 the record influenced decisions or that the presiding judicial officer’s rulings were so irrational
21 that they must be the result of prejudice. Plaintiffs do not allege any facts outside the record that
22

improperly influenced the decisions in this matter. Plaintiffs have identified no error of law or
fact, much less a determination that was so outlandish as to give rise to an inference of bias.

23
24
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE2

1

Plaintiffs may disagree with Judge Bryan’s rulings but that is a basis for appeal, not

2 disqualification. As Plaintiffs have cited no extrajudicial source of bias, the Court finds that
3 Judge Bryan’s impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned. There being no evidence of bias or
4

prejudice, Plaintiffs request for recusal is DENIED.

5
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
6
Dated: January 27, 2012.
7
8

A

9
10

Marsha J. Pechman
Chief United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE3