Mavis v. Commercial Carriers, Inc.

408 F. Supp. 55
CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 21, 1975
DocketCV 74-2708-AAH
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 408 F. Supp. 55 (Mavis v. Commercial Carriers, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mavis v. Commercial Carriers, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 55 (C.D. Cal. 1975).

Opinion

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER , DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGE

HAUK, District Judge.

This matter came on for hearing Monday, November 17, 1975, at 1:30 p. m., before the Honorable A. Andrew Hauk, United States District Judge, to whom the case, cause and proceedings herein 1 were heretofore assigned by lot under the rules, regulations and orders of this United States District Court for the Central District of California, and particularly, General Order No. 104 thereof, upon the following papers and pleadings:

1. A letter addressed to said Judge Hauk, dated October 28, 1975, by Walter H. Young, attorney for plaintiff, with copies sent to defendant’s counsel and to Chief Judge Stephens of this Court enclosing a copy of “REQUEST TO HON. A. ANDREW HAUK, JUDGE, TO EXCUSE HIMSELF FROM THE TRIAL OF THIS ACTION AND RETURN THE CAUSE FOR REASSIGNMENT.” The letter further stated:

“I have not actually scheduled a Motion on this Request as it is my understanding that it is proper to call the facts to the attention of the Court in this matter, rather than in the form of a formal Motion.
If your Honor feels that this Request should be made in the form of a formal Motion, I will schedule the same accordingly.”

This letter was received on 'October 2'8, 1975, and at that time the Court made its Order to the Clerk to file the letter and its enclosure and put it on the calendar as a “motion” under the Court’s “17-day” Rule, Local Rule 3(e). Whereupon the Clerk, by Minute Order of October 30, 1975, set the matter for hearing on November 17, 1975, at 10:00 a. m., when it was continued to 1:30 p. m., because of the crowded motion calendar for that morning. See Appendix A attached.

2. Thereafter plaintiff’s counsel filed. Points and Authorities in Support of the “Request” for Disqualification, and a Supplemental Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel, Walter H. Young (Appendix B attached).

3. In reply thereto, defendant filed a Response with Points and Authorities, and Affidavits of R. G. Furse and Edward T. Bowers, Executives of Texas Gas Transmission Corporation, the parent company of a corporation, American Commercial Lines which owns all of the stock of defendant Commercial Carriers, Inc. (Appendix C attached).

After full consideration of each and all of said pleadings and points and authorities therein contained, and the oral arguments made before the Court on Monday, November 17, 1975, and good cause appearing, the Court orally discussed the various contentions and made its oral order refusing to disqualify, recuse or excuse itself from further *58 proceedings in this case, and noted that it would make and enter written Findings, Conclusions and Order, which it now does, as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Letter and Request of Plaintiff’s Attorney For Disqualification of the Court Are, and Each of Them Is, Legally Insufficient Under Local Rule 1.8, as well as 28 United States Code Mi.

The letter of plaintiff’s said counsel, Walter H. Young, with its enclosure was submitted in violation of Local Rule 1.8' of the Central District of California, which provides as follows:

“1.8 Correspondence and Communications with the Judge:
Attorneys or parties to any action or proceeding should refrain from writing letters to the Judge or otherwise communicating with the Judge unless opposing counsel is present. All matters to be called to a Judge’s attention should be formally submitted as hereinafter provided.”

For this reason it is legally insufficient, but rather than waste time and paper, the Court ordered the Clerk, as stated above, to put it and its enclosure on the motion calendar under Local Rule 3(e) and it was so held on Monday, November 17, 1975. Counsel’s failure to abide by Local Rule 1.8 was, therefore, permitted in this instance, and while it is legally insufficient, we are treating the letter as a motion.

However, since 28 U.S.C. § 144 requires that any party seeking to disqualify a Federal Judge must file a “timely and sufficient affidavit” of “the party” (not the attorney) and further that the affidavit of the party (not the attorney) must be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith, it is clear beyond any doubt that the letter and request (or declaration, or affidavit whichever it may be) are both legally insufficient to meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 144. 2 The same legal insufficiency is found in the Supplemental Declaration of Attorney Walter H. Young. (Appendix B) All three are signed by the. attorney (Walter H. Young) for the party and not by the party, and the affidavit, if it be such, as well as the supplemental declaration were not accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that they were made in good faith. See Appendices A and B.

The Court is obliged to determine their legal sufficiency under 28 U.S.C. § 144. Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 33, 41 S.Ct. 203, 65 L.Ed. 481 (1921); Batts v. United States, 413 F.2d 41 (9th Cir. 1963); United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069 (2d Cir. 1969); Lyons v. United States, 325 F.2d 370 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. den., 377 U.S. 969, 84 S.Ct. 1650, 12 L.Ed.2d 738 (1964). Since they are not legally sufficient, being signed and filed solely and only by the attorney, Walter H. Young, and not by the party, Paul A. Mavis, they are obviously legally insufficient.

(2) Assuming the Papers in Appendix A Had Been Signed and *59 Filed, By The Party, Paul A. Mavis, They Are Still Legally Insufficient Under 28 United States Code 1UU and 28 United States Code 155.

While we believe that the points already made would be sufficient in and of themselves to require this Court to deny a request by plaintiff’s counsel that the Court disqualify itself in this case, we will, for the purpose of the following discussion, assume that the “Request” (Appendix A) is the affidavit of the party, and further that the failure to accompany it with a certificate of good faith by counsel of record for the party is not fatal. Nevertheless, even assuming these to be the facts, which they obviously are not, it is just as certain that neither the letter, nor the request (see Appendix A) nor the Supplemental Declaration of the attorney, Walter H.

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

Related

McCann v. Communications Design Corp.
775 F. Supp. 1535 (D. Connecticut, 1991)
In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Incorporated
861 F.2d 1307 (Second Circuit, 1988)
In Re Doninton Investments, N.V.
97 B.R. 112 (S.D. Florida, 1988)
Dunning v. Board of Supervisors
4 Va. Cir. 213 (Chesterfield County Circuit Court, 1984)
Carbana v. Cruz
595 F. Supp. 585 (D. Puerto Rico, 1984)
In re Federal Skywalk Cases
93 F.R.D. 415 (W.D. Missouri, 1982)
United States v. Peltier
529 F. Supp. 549 (C.D. California, 1982)
United States v. Boffa
513 F. Supp. 505 (D. Delaware, 1981)
Church of Scientology of Cal. v. Cooper
495 F. Supp. 455 (C.D. California, 1980)
United States v. Conforte
457 F. Supp. 641 (D. Nevada, 1978)
United States v. Baker
441 F. Supp. 612 (M.D. Tennessee, 1977)
Smith v. Pepsico, Inc.
434 F. Supp. 524 (S.D. Florida, 1977)
State of Cal. v. Kleppe
431 F. Supp. 1344 (C.D. California, 1977)
Spires v. Hearst Corp.
420 F. Supp. 304 (C.D. California, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
408 F. Supp. 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mavis-v-commercial-carriers-inc-cacd-1975.