Usdc Disbarment - Dkt 12 - Order Denying Recusal Of Judge Otis Wright
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
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
Usdc Disbarment - Dkt 3 - Order Of Disbarment
June 2020 7
Order Denying Motion For Recusal
June 2020 7More Documents from ""
