WOLFE v. AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, G-10-578. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
Number: infdco20150706e90
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jul. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN R. FROESCHNER , Magistrate Judge . After thoughtful and serious consideration, the Motion to Recuse will be denied. It is unfortunate Plaintiff's counsel feels as he does, but none of the grounds asserted stem from any extrajudicial source. Nor do they display the deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism rendering fair judgment impossible as required for disqualification. Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540 , 555 (1994); Andrade v. Chojnacki , 228 F.3d 448, 462 (
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN R. FROESCHNER , Magistrate Judge . After thoughtful and serious consideration, the Motion to Recuse will be denied. It is unfortunate Plaintiff's counsel feels as he does, but none of the grounds asserted stem from any extrajudicial source. Nor do they display the deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism rendering fair judgment impossible as required for disqualification. Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540 , 555 (1994); Andrade v. Chojnacki , 228 F.3d 448, 462 (5..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN R. FROESCHNER, Magistrate Judge.
After thoughtful and serious consideration, the Motion to Recuse will be denied. It is unfortunate Plaintiff's counsel feels as he does, but none of the grounds asserted stem from any extrajudicial source. Nor do they display the deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism rendering fair judgment impossible as required for disqualification. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); Andrade v. Chojnacki, 228 F.3d 448, 462 (5th Cir. 2003)
In summary, the prior findings and decisions were based upon evidence presented during the trials; the perceived threat of sanctions was prompted by information, even if erroneous, that counsel did not plan to personally attend the requested hearing; and the denial of a new expert, whose opinions merely bolstered the opinions of Plaintiff's designated expert, occurred after discovery had been completed and the long-pending cases were ready for disposition. As to counsel's July 11 letter, after reading the first sentence I set it aside and chose not to complete it; I only read it in full after it was attached to the Motion.
It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse (Instrument no. 52) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
