Elawyers Elawyers

Cargill, Inc. v. WDS, Inc., 3:16-cv-00848-FDW-DSC. (2018)

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20180913h99 Visitors: 23
Filed: Sep. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte upon the filing of The Finley Group, Inc's Motion for Order in Aid of Bankruptcy Proceeding of Diverse Label Printing, LLC. (Doc. No. 456). The Finley Group is represented by Kiah T. Ford, IV of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP. (Doc. No. 456). Because of the undersigned's relationship within the third degree with a partner of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, the Court ordered Kiah T. Ford, IV of Parke
More

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte upon the filing of The Finley Group, Inc's Motion for Order in Aid of Bankruptcy Proceeding of Diverse Label Printing, LLC. (Doc. No. 456). The Finley Group is represented by Kiah T. Ford, IV of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP. (Doc. No. 456). Because of the undersigned's relationship within the third degree with a partner of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, the Court ordered Kiah T. Ford, IV of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP to brief the Court as to whether the undersigned's brother has "an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(iii). (Doc. No. 459).

Counsel timely complied by filing a detailed response, including declarations from counsel appearing in this matter and the law firm's managing partner regarding the firm's limited representation in this proceeding and the minimal amount, if any, the undersigned's brother is unlikely to, but may, receive from fees in this matter. (Doc. No. 472; Exhibits 2-3). Following this filing, no other party to this action filed any objection or otherwise responded to this Court's order and counsel's response thereto, and the time for doing so has expired.

For the reasons stated in counsel's filing (Doc. No. 472), as well as the applicable law and supporting materials included in counsel's response (Docs. Nos. 472-1, 472-2, 472-3), the Court concludes there is no basis for recusal in this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(iii).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer