Summary
This United States District Court for the District of Arizona order addresses Plaintiffs' motion for judicial reassignment and reconsideration following the dismissal of their complaint. The court analyzes the legal standards for judicial recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, concluding that the submitted affidavits lack factual sufficiency to demonstrate bias or prejudice. The court further denies the motion for reconsideration, finding no manifest error in its prior rulings on personal jurisdiction, service of process, and applicable Ninth Circuit precedent. The motion is denied and the case remains closed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs' §144 affidavit was legally sufficient to require the judge's recusal.
- Whether the motion for reconsideration should be granted.
- Whether personal jurisdiction existed over the defendants.
- Whether service of process on Judge McCormick was proper.
Holdings
- The affidavit was insufficient; the judge was not required to recuse.
- The motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Personal jurisdiction was lacking; the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed.
- Service was improper; the complaint against Judge McCormick was dismissed for failure to effect timely service.
Key quotations
“The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” (at 28)
“Thus, the Court must determine the legal sufficiency of the affidavits filed pursuant to § 144.” (at 12)
Factual background
Plaintiffs alleged that Judge Lanza was biased against them, claiming personal bias, financial interests, and even bribery, but provided no supporting facts. They also asserted that Judge McCormick had not been properly served. The court found the affidavits insufficient to establish bias and determined service was inadequate.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed a complaint which the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to serve Judge McCormick. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for chief judge review and a motion for reconsideration, both of which were denied.