Priscilla Coleman v. Management & Training Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRISCILLA COLEMAN, Case No.: 26-cv-02820-JO-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR RECUSAL [ECF No. 15] 14 MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Priscilla Coleman’s Motion for Recusal of 18 Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. (ECF No. 15.) Specifically, Ms. Coleman seeks 19 recusal because the Court’s handling of a status conference on June 8, 2026 “caused her to 20 question whether her concerns were being fairly considered and whether future 21 proceedings before Magistrate Judge Burkhardt would appear impartial.” (Id. at 2) 22 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 23 On May 27, 2026, Plaintiff Priscilla Coleman filed a Notice Regarding Rule 26(f) 24 Conference. (ECF No. 12.) By this filing, Ms. Coleman advised the Court that Defendant 25 Management & Training Corporation had failed to respond to Plaintiff’s communications 26 regarding conducting a Rule 26(f) conference and had not yet responded to discovery that 27 was propounded before the case was removed from state court to federal court. The Court 28 set the matter for a video status conference on Monday, June 8, 2026. 1 Plaintiff and Defendant, through counsel Tim Keegan, appeared by video at the 2 status conference. Mr. Keegan acknowledged that he had failed to comply with the Court’s 3 order regarding participation in a Rule 26(f) conference. He indicated that there may have 4 been some confusion about the obligation to meet the obligations set forth in the Court’s 5 May 8, 2026, order because of the transfer of the case between judges. The Court consulted 6 the docket and advised Mr. Keegan that the change of judges only affected the District 7 Judge assignment, not the Magistrate Judge assignment, and the Court’s order was not 8 impacted. 9 Ms. Coleman had an opportunity to be heard. She reiterated that she had endeavored 10 to comply with the Court’s order and that Mr. Keegan had not been responsive. Ms. 11 Coleman also noted that she had had very little notice of the status conference because, 12 unlike Defendant, she gets notices by mail and had only received this notice the Saturday 13 before the Monday matter. Mr. Keegan offered to forward electronic notices of docket 14 entries to Ms. Coleman. Ms. Coleman responded that she was well able to monitor court 15 proceedings by regularly checking the docket. The Court shared the Court’s interpretation 16 of Mr. Keegan’s offer—that he was endeavoring to alleviate the delay in Ms. Coleman’s 17 receipt of notifications—and commented that the Court thought it was a considerate offer 18 to make. Ms. Coleman respectfully declined the offer. 19 Mr. Keegan assured the Court that he was now in communication with Ms. Colemen 20 and they were scheduled to hold a Rule 26 Conference. The Court lightly admonished Mr. 21 Keegan to be more careful in the future about the Court’s orders and deadlines and to be 22 more diligent about responding to Ms. Coleman when she tried to communicate with him. 23 He assured the Court of his commitment to doing both. The Court was satisfied with Mr. 24 Keegan’s response. 25 II. PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT 26 Plaintiff has concerns about the Court’s conduct of the status conference. 27 Specifically, Ms. Coleman “understood the Court’s response as shifting the focus away 28 from the reason the conference had been scheduled,” which was Defendant’s failure to 1 comply with its Rule 26 obligations and communicate with Plaintiff. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 2 was left feeling that “her concerns regarding opposing counsel’s conduct were not given 3 the same consideration as opposing counsel’s explanations.” (Id.) Finally, Ms. Coleman 4 “believes that the circumstances described above have caused her to question the 5 appearance of impartiality in future proceedings before Magistrate Judge Burkhardt.” (Id.) 6 III. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 455(a), “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the 8 United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might 9 reasonably be questioned.” Thus, a federal judge should disqualify herself, “if a reasonable 10 person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might 11 reasonably be questioned.” Sakellar v. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., 765 F.2d 1453, 12 1457 (9th Cir.1985). “Since a federal judge is presumed to be impartial, the party seeking 13 disqualification bears a substantial burden to show that the judge is biased.” Perry v. 14 Schwarzenegger, 790 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1129 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting Torres v. Chrysler 15 Fin. Co., No. C 07–00915 JW, 2007 WL 3165665, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2007)). 16 Moreover, “a federal judge has a duty to sit where not disqualified which is equally as 17 strong as the duty to not sit where disqualified.” Laird v. Tatum, 409 U.S. 824, 837 (1972). 18 IV. ANALYSIS 19 This Court strives to conduct hearings and status conferences in such a way that each 20 litigant feels heard and is left with confidence in the impartiality of the Court. That 21 objective was not achieved in this instance, where Plaintiff was left feeling unheard and 22 feeling like her position was not given fair consideration. For that the Court is regretful. 23 That being said, the Court has an obligation to “sit where not disqualified.” In this 24 case, the Court cannot conclude that “a reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts” 25 would reasonably question the Court’s impartiality. The Court, at the proceeding in 26 question, heard from both sides. The Court was respectful to both sides. The Court 27 addressed the concerns raised by the Plaintiff in her Notice Regarding Rule 26(f) 28 Conference. The Court endeavored to respond in a measured and proportional way to 1 || Defendant’s confessed failures to comply with the Court’s order and to communicate in a 2 ||timely fashion with Plaintiff. Plaintiff perceived the Court to have “minimize[ed] the 3 || conduct that led to the conference.” And Plaintiff takes issue with the Court characterizing 4 ||Defendant’s offer to send Plaintiff courtesy emails of docketing notifications as 5 ||considerate. The Court recognizes Plaintiffs displeasure with the proceeding and the basis 6 ||for it. However, the Court’s handling of the status conference, even as described by 7 || Plaintiff, cannot reasonably be considered to reflect bias. 8 Nothing about this status conference creates the appearance of impropriety, nor 9 ||might the Court’s impartiality reasonably be questioned based upon how this status 10 || conference was conducted. 11 Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal is DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: June 12, 2026 - i U Burbthenddr n. Jill L. Burkhardt 15 ited States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28