Taveras v. Bank of America, N.A.

M.D. Florida

Taveras v. Bank of America, N.A.

DecidedAugust 31, 2023

Docket6:21-cv-00189

StatusUnknown

This text of Taveras v. Bank of America, N.A. (Taveras v. Bank of America, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taveras v. Bank of America, N.A., (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ELIEZER TAVERAS and VALERIA ROSA TAVERAS,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 6:21-cv-189-WWB-EJK

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SERVIS ONE, INC., and CHRISTIANA TRUST,

Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Eliezer Taveras has filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 seeking my recusal due to prior employment with the law firm of Williams & Connolly LLP, which Plaintiff alleges “represents financial institutions, including federally-insured banks and their officers and directors, in securities litigation, etc.” (Doc. 103 at 4.) While it is true as a general matter that Williams & Connolly LLP has previously represented financial institutions, I have not worked at that law firm for nearly a decade. Plaintiff’s Complaint states: “The facts giving rise to this action begin on 06/22/2015 and run up to around 4/20/2018.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 1.) I was not employed by Williams & Connolly LLP at that time, I have no personal knowledge of the facts underlying the case, I have no financial interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this case, no attorney at Williams & Connolly LLP is attorney of record in this case, and there is otherwise no basis set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 on which I should recuse myself. My prior employment with a law firm that has represented financial institutions is, in itself, insufficient to demonstrate bias or prejudice in this case. See Huff v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 1363, 1369-70 (“[T]he trial judge in this case did not participate with defense counsel in outside business ventures; he was not personally represented by defense counsel; nor did any member of the judge's family retain any relationship with his former law firm. While it is true that the judge did associate with and was a partner of the firm prior to appointment to the bench, this does not create the same risk of impartiality” previously found to be improper.). Accordingly, the Motion to Recuse is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to remove the ex-parte designation from the Motion to Recuse and this Order. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 31, 2023.

aM J. KIDD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ELIEZER TAVERAS and VALERIA ROSA TAVERAS,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 6:21-cv-189-WWB-EJK

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SERVIS ONE, INC., and CHRISTIANA TRUST,

Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Eliezer Taveras has filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 seeking my recusal due to prior employment with the law firm of Williams & Connolly LLP, which Plaintiff alleges “represents financial institutions, including federally-insured banks and their officers and directors, in securities litigation, etc.” (Doc. 103 at 4.) While it is true as a general matter that Williams & Connolly LLP has previously represented financial institutions, I have not worked at that law firm for nearly a decade. Plaintiff’s Complaint states: “The facts giving rise to this action begin on 06/22/2015 and run up to around 4/20/2018.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 1.) I was not employed by Williams & Connolly LLP at that time, I have no personal knowledge of the facts underlying the case, I have no financial interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this case, no attorney at Williams & Connolly LLP is attorney of record in this case, and there is otherwise no basis set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 on which I should recuse myself. My prior employment with a law firm that has represented financial institutions is, in itself, insufficient to demonstrate bias or prejudice in this case. See Huff v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 1363, 1369-70 (“[T]he trial judge in this case did not participate with defense counsel in outside business ventures; he was not personally represented by defense counsel; nor did any member of the judge's family retain any relationship with his former law firm. While it is true that the judge did associate with and was a partner of the firm prior to appointment to the bench, this does not create the same risk of impartiality” previously found to be improper.). Accordingly, the Motion to Recuse is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to remove the ex-parte designation from the Motion to Recuse and this Order. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 31, 2023.

aM J. KIDD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Taveras v. Bank of America, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taveras-v-bank-of-america-na-flmd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack