Remmia Radhakrishnan Sukapurath v. Sajeesh Kumar Kamala Raghavan

Summary

The Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed an accelerated interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of a motion to recuse a trial judge. The court held that the appellant failed to comply with mandatory Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B requirements, including providing the recusal motion, supporting affidavit or declaration, and a file-stamped copy of the trial court’s order.

Holdings

1. A petitioner seeking an accelerated interlocutory recusal appeal must comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B's mandatory record requirements, including providing the motion for recusal, its supporting affidavit or declaration, the supporting documents, and the trial court's ruling; failure to do so may require dismissal because the record is insufficient for expedited review.
2. A non-file-stamped copy of the order denying recusal does not establish that the order was entered by the trial court in the same form and manner, and the appellate court may decline to overlook that defect when other record deficiencies independently require dismissal.
3. The scope of a Rule 10B recusal appeal is limited to whether the trial court erred in denying the recusal motion; additional allegations of bias not included in the initial trial-court motion will not be considered on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the accelerated interlocutory recusal appeal could proceed when the appellant failed to include the trial-court motion for recusal and its required supporting materials.
2. Whether the appeal could proceed when the copy of the trial court's order denying recusal was not file-stamped.
3. Whether additional allegations of bias based on events occurring after the recusal motion was adjudicated were properly before the Court of Appeals.

Disposition

dismissed