Brandon Canup v. Bryan F. Aylstock, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied Brandon Canup’s motion to recuse and disqualify Judge M. Casey Rodgers under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1). The court concluded that its prior involvement in the 3M Combat Arms Earplug multidistrict litigation, comments concerning leadership counsel, and participation in Canup’s settlement-related hearing did not establish bias, personal knowledge of disputed facts, or an objectively reasonable appearance of partiality.

Holdings

1. The judge's participation in the MDL and conduct of Canup's opt-out hearing did not create an objectively reasonable basis to question impartiality because the hearing procedures and the presence of leadership counsel were intended to inform Canup about settlement and litigation risks, not to favor any party.
2. Recusal was not required because the judge had no personal bias or prejudice against Canup or any party and no personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts; the judge's general comments praising MDL leadership and knowledge gained through prior judicial proceedings did not demonstrate deep-seated favoritism or antagonism.
3. The prior recusal in Kelly did not require recusal here because Kelly involved the judge's comments about the quality of representation by counsel who had been retained by that plaintiff, whereas Canup sued MDL leadership attorneys who had not been retained to represent him and the judge's comments were general comments about MDL leadership.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the judge's prior participation in the 3M MDL, including arranging and conducting an opt-out hearing attended by MDL leadership counsel, created an appearance of partiality requiring recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
2. Whether the judge's prior comments praising MDL leadership counsel or knowledge acquired during the MDL constituted personal bias, prejudice, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts requiring recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1).
3. Whether the judge's recusal in Kelly v. Aylstock required recusal in Canup's materially different case.

Disposition

other