Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. United States

Federal Claims

Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. United States

63 Fed. Cl. 579, 2005 U.S. Claims LEXIS 25, 2005 WL 256355

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims

DecidedJanuary 31, 2005

DocketNo. 95-468-C

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 Fed. Cl. 579 (Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 579, 2005 U.S. Claims LEXIS 25, 2005 WL 256355 (uscfc 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

WOLSKI, Judge.

For the reasons fully explained in the Opinion and Order in First Federal Savings Bank of Hegewisch, No. 93-162 C, also filed today, defendant’s motion for the disqualification of the undersigned from hearing this ease, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b)(2), is DENIED.

Just as was the case in Hegewisch, neither Mr. Charles J. Cooper nor any other lawyer with Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, PLLC, or with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, served as plaintiffs lawyer in this matter. See Ex. 1 to Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Recuse ¶ 8 (Eggleston Aff.); Ex. 2 to id. ¶¶ 2, 5 (Eisenhart Aff.). Nor had any of the payments made by plaintiff to the joint fund for shared expenses of the Plaintiffs’ Coordinating Com[580]*580mittee (“PCC”) been used for any attorneys’ fees. See Ex. 1 to id. ¶ 10; Ex. 2 to id. ¶ 7; Ex. 3 to id. ¶¶ 3, 7 (Sisson Decl.). Nor has Cooper & Kirk or Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, on behalf of the PCC or any of its clients, filed any briefs in this matter.

Neither I nor anyone with whom I was associated in private practice served as a lawyer concerning the matter in controversy in this case, and it is not reasonable to question my impartiality in this matter. Accordingly, the motion for disqualification is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

WOLSKI, Judge.

For the reasons fully explained in the Opinion and Order in First Federal Savings Bank of Hegewisch, No. 93-162 C, also filed today, defendant’s motion for the disqualification of the undersigned from hearing this ease, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b)(2), is DENIED.

Just as was the case in Hegewisch, neither Mr. Charles J. Cooper nor any other lawyer with Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, PLLC, or with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, served as plaintiffs lawyer in this matter. See Ex. 1 to Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Recuse ¶ 8 (Eggleston Aff.); Ex. 2 to id. ¶¶ 2, 5 (Eisenhart Aff.). Nor had any of the payments made by plaintiff to the joint fund for shared expenses of the Plaintiffs’ Coordinating Com[580]*580mittee (“PCC”) been used for any attorneys’ fees. See Ex. 1 to id. ¶ 10; Ex. 2 to id. ¶ 7; Ex. 3 to id. ¶¶ 3, 7 (Sisson Decl.). Nor has Cooper & Kirk or Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, on behalf of the PCC or any of its clients, filed any briefs in this matter.

Neither I nor anyone with whom I was associated in private practice served as a lawyer concerning the matter in controversy in this case, and it is not reasonable to question my impartiality in this matter. Accordingly, the motion for disqualification is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Fed. Cl. 579, 2005 U.S. Claims LEXIS 25, 2005 WL 256355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/astoria-federal-savings-loan-assn-v-united-states-uscfc-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack