welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
  4. 2019
  5. Kennedy v. Equifax, Inc., 18-214. (2019)

Kennedy v. Equifax, Inc., 18-214. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20190401541 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL , District Judge . AND NOW, this 27 th day of March, 2019, upon consideration of all pending motions in this matter, as well as all responses and replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal (Docket No. 64) is DENIED 1 ; 2. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant, Richard Smith (Docket No. 25) is GRANTED ; 3. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Equifax, Inc., (Docket No. 26) is GRANTED ; 4. The Motion to Dismiss of Defend
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2019, upon consideration of all pending motions in this matter, as well as all responses and replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal (Docket No. 64) is DENIED1;

2. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant, Richard Smith (Docket No. 25) is GRANTED;

3. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Equifax, Inc., (Docket No. 26) is GRANTED;

4. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant, American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida (Docket No. 57), is GRANTED;

5. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant, Barbara Lopez (Docket No. 58) is GRANTED;

6. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendant, Steven Craig LeMasters (Docket No. 59), is GRANTED;

7. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 65) is DENIED;

8. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

9. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

FootNotes


1. Kennedy moves for my recusal under 28 U.S.C § 455(a), which allows a party to seek recusal of a federal judge on the basis of bias and prejudice and "requires a judge to recuse where his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Mina v. Chester County, 2015 WL 6550543, at *6 (E.D. Pa. 2015); see also Petrossian v. Cole, 613 Fed.Appx. 109, 112 (3d Cir. 2015). While the statute mandates recusal if the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, "a party's displeasure with legal ruling does not form an adequate basis for recusal." Id. (citing Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000)). Further, "recusal is not required on the grounds of unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation." Id. (citing In re Kokinda, 581 Fed.Appx. 160, 161 (3d Cir. 2014)). Kennedy's motion for recusal and memorandum in support fail to set forth any basis whatsoever for my requested recusal. Accordingly, his motion is denied.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
18-214.
Counsels
  • JONATHAN D. KLEIN
  • MISTY L. PETERSON
  • JOSHUA UPIN
Similar Cases

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