Usdc Disbarment - Dkt 14 - Order Denying Motion For Reconsideration Re Recusal Of Judge Wright

Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC

Document 14

Filed 09/30/2009

Page 1 of 4

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 FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DENIAL OF THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE 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-Order02.wpd

Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC

1 2

Document 14

Filed 09/30/2009

Page 2 of 4

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

Thereafter the motion to recuse Judge Wright was randomly assigned to this

8

Court.2 On September 15, 2009, the Court denied Fine’s motion to recuse Judge

9

Wright. Thereafter, on September 28, 2009, Fine moved for reconsideration of the

10

Court’s September 15, 2009 order. Fine’s Motion For Reconsideration Of The Denial

11

Of The Recusal Of Judge Wright is presently before the Court.

12 13

Local Rule 7-18 sets forth the bases upon which this Court may reconsider a previous order. The Rule provides as follows:

14

A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made

15

only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that

16

presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise or

17

reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for

18

reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new

19

material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision,

20

or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented

21

to the Court before such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in

22

any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in

23

opposition to the original motion.

24 25

L.R. 7-18. Having carefully reviewed the motion for reconsideration, the Court concludes

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-Order02.wpd

2

Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC

Document 14

Filed 09/30/2009

Page 3 of 4

1

that Fine has not demonstrated a “material difference in fact” from what was presented

2

when the Court first considered the motion, nor has he shown that “new material facts”

3

have emerged since the decision was made. See Senter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 1994

4

WL 899239, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 1994) (denying motion for reconsideration where

5

no material difference in fact was raised that could not have been presented to the court

6

before its order); Van Ryn v. Korean Air Lines, 640 F. Supp. 284, 285-86 (C.D. Cal.

7

1985).

8

The claimed basis for the recusal of Judge Wright is that Counts 16, 17, 18, 20,

9

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

10

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

11

has been immunized retroactively from criminal prosecution, civil liability and

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

Constitution.

16

In his motion for reconsideration, Fine argues that the Court failed to address

17

“crucial facts that the Federal civil rights cases which formed the bases for Counts 15-

18

22 of the State Bar’s Notice of Disciplinary Charges and conviction of ‘moral turpitude’

19

on Counts 16, 18, 20 and 21-22 (considered together).” Mot. at 1. Contrary to Fine’s

20

assertion, those allegations were considered by the Court in its September 15, 2009

21

order. Accordingly, there is no material difference in the facts presented and those

22

presented in connection with the original motion to recuse Judge Wright.

23

Moreover, even if the Court were to treat Fine’s detailed discussion of the

24

complaints underlying Counts 15 through 22 as new matter, it is still clear that Fine did

25

not serve as counsel of record in the Sturgeon case. Nor is there any showing that he

26

was otherwise involved in that case. The mere fact that Fine may have argued in his

27

state disbarment proceeding that judges received impermissible payments does not

28

create an appearance of impartiality. It does not matter that other former Superior Court H:\CASNYDER\Other Judges\MC09-129ABC-Order02.wpd

3

Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC

Document 14

Filed 09/30/2009

Page 4 of 4

1

judges have self-recused in other cases brought by Fine asserting that payments to

2

judges are unconstitutional. Rather, the question is whether the fact that Fine has

3

argued in suits against Commissioner Mitchell, and Judges Lewin and Yaffe of the Los

4

Angeles County Superior Court that judicial pay received by Superior Court jurists

5

violated Article VI, Section 9 of the California Constitution and the United States

6

Constitution requires Judge Wright to recuse. It does not. Consequently, even if the

7

present motion for reconsideration is considered on its merits, it must be denied. For

8

these reasons the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 11

Dated: September 30, 2009

__________________________________ CHRISTINA A. SNYDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H:\CASNYDER\Other Judges\MC09-129ABC-Order02.wpd

4