Usdc Disbarment - Dkt 12 - Order Denying Recusal Of Judge Otis Wright

  • Uploaded by: Honor in Justice
  • 0
  • 0
  • June 2020
  • PDF

This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA


Overview

Download & View Usdc Disbarment - Dkt 12 - Order Denying Recusal Of Judge Otis Wright as PDF for free.

More details

  • Words: 699
  • Pages: 3
Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC

Document 12

Filed 09/15/2009

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

In the Disciplinary Matter of RICHARD ISAAC FINE

) ) ) ) California State Bar No.: 55259 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) _________________________________ )

Case No. MC-09-00129 ABC ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE THE HONORABLE OTIS T. WRIGHT, II

On July 27, 2009, the Honorable Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, ordered disbarment of Richard Isaac Fine from practice before this Court, following his disbarment by the State Bar of California on March 13, 2009.1 On or about August 18, 2009, Fine moved to recuse Judge Collins on the grounds that her husband is Dental Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. According to Fine, Dr. Collins’ employment by the County of Los Angeles requires that Judge Collins be

26 27 28

1

In the Disciplinary Matter of Richard Isaac Fine, No. MC-09-129 ABC (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2009); see also In the Matter of Richard Isaac Fine, 04-O-14366 (Review Dept. 2008). H:\CASNYDER\Other Judges\MC09-129ABC-Order01.wpd

Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC

1 2

Document 12

Filed 09/15/2009

Page 2 of 3

recused. Thereafter this matter was randomly reassigned to the Honorable Otis T. Wright,

3

II, to decide the recusal motion. On August 27, 2009, Judge Wright issued an order

4

denying the motion to recuse Judge Collins. On September 3, 2009, Fine moved to

5

recuse Judge Wright for failure to disclose that he was formerly a Los Angeles Superior

6

Court Judge.

7 8 9

Thereafter the motion to recuse Judge Wright was randomly assigned to this Court.2 The claimed basis for the recusal of Judge Wright is that Counts 16, 17, 18, 20,

10

21 and 22 of his disbarment case relate to Fine’s challenge to payments made by Los

11

Angeles County to Los Angeles County Superior Court judges, and that Judge Wright

12

has been immunized retroactively from criminal prosecution, civil liability and

13

disciplinary action by Calif. Gov. Code §§ 68220 et seq., enacted on February 20, 2009,

14

in response to Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App. 4th 630 (2008), which

15

held such payments by the County to be violative of Article VI, § 19 of the California

16

Constitution.

17

28 U.S.C. § 455(a), relied upon by Fine, provides as follows:

18

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States

19

shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his

20

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

21

In this case, it is clear that Fine did not serve as counsel of record in the Sturgeon case.

22

Nor is there any showing that he was otherwise involved in that case. The mere fact

23

that Fine may have argued that judges received impermissible payments in his state

24

disbarment proceeding does not create an appearance of impartiality. Judge Wright left

25

the Superior Court to join this Court on April 16, 2007, more than year prior to the

26 27 28

2

This Court has previously presided over a case in which Fine was counsel for plaintiff, Paeco Corp. v. World Savings Bank FSB, Case No. 07-02831-CAS(AGR). H:\CASNYDER\Other Judges\MC09-129ABC-Order01.wpd

2

Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC

Document 12

Filed 09/15/2009

Page 3 of 3

1

decision in Sturgeon. Further, nothing contained in the opinion and order disbarring

2

Fine, filed on September 19, 2008, supports Fine’s assertion that Counts 16, 17, 18, 20,

3

21 and 22 relate to any challenge of payments made by Los Angeles County to its

4

Superior Court Judges. Because Fine had no involvement in Sturgeon, it is likewise

5

irrelevant that Judge Wright may have been immunized by the enactment of

6

Government Code § 68222. For these reasons the motion to recuse Judge Wright is

7

DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 10

Dated: September 15, 2009

__________________________________ CHRISTINA A. SNYDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H:\CASNYDER\Other Judges\MC09-129ABC-Order01.wpd

3

Related Documents


More Documents from ""