Case Title: In re Disqualification of Russo

Citation: 2018-Ohio-5457

Docket Number: 18-AP-132

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-12-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Russo, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-5457.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF RUSSO. 
BLUE DURHAM PROPERTIES, L.L.C. v. KRANTZ. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Russo, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-5457.] 
Judges—Affidavits 
of 
disqualification—R.C. 
2701.03—Affiant 
failed 
to 
demonstrate bias or prejudice—Disqualification denied. 
(No. 18-AP-132—Decided December 4, 2018.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
Pleas Case No. CV-07-638134. 
____________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Stephen P. Hanudel, counsel for the defendants, has filed an affidavit 
and a supplemental affidavit with the clerk of this court pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 
seeking to disqualify Judge Nancy Margaret Russo from presiding over any further 
proceedings in the above-referenced case. 
{¶ 2} Mr. Hanudel avers that Judge Russo is biased against him and his 
clients and should be disqualified from deciding his pending motion to vacate the 
sanctions that she previously imposed on him.  Judge Russo has responded in 
writing and denies exhibiting any bias against Mr. Hanudel or the defendants. 
{¶ 3} “The statutory right to seek disqualification of a judge is an 
extraordinary remedy. * * * A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to be 
biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome 
these presumptions.”  In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2003-
Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5.  Mr. Hanudel has failed to set forth sufficiently 
compelling evidence to overcome the presumption that Judge Russo will be fair 
and impartial. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 4} Mr. Hanudel’s affidavit is primarily based on Judge Russo’s conduct 
at the January 2017 sanctions hearing, during which he claims that the judge yelled 
at him, falsely accused him of challenging the professionalism of a different judge 
who issued a prior ruling in the case, asked him a series of prejudicial questions, 
and became an advocate for the plaintiff.  Attorneys should be free to challenge, in 
appropriate legal settings, a perceived judicial error without a court misconstruing 
the intent of the challenge.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Shimko, 134 Ohio St.3d 
544, 2012-Ohio-5694, 983 N.E.2d 1300, ¶ 32.  And “[w]hen a judge abandons the 
judicial role to become an advocate for one party or another, the judge may be 
subject to legitimate questions about his or her impartiality.”  In re Disqualification 
of Crawford, 142 Ohio St.3d 73, 2014-Ohio-5876, 28 N.E.3d 64, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 5} Although the January 2017 hearing transcript shows tension between 
Judge Russo and Mr. Hanudel, the transcript does not clearly establish that the 
judge is biased against him.  Judge Russo believed—and was later affirmed on 
appeal—that Mr. Hanudel had engaged in frivolous conduct.  See Blue Durham 
Properties, L.L.C., v. Krantz, 8th Dist. Nos. 105236 and 105394, 2017-Ohio-8230, 
¶ 22-37.  Judges are entitled to express dissatisfaction with an attorney’s improper 
tactics, although “that dissatisfaction can and should be expressed in a way that 
promotes public confidence in the integrity, dignity, and impartiality of the 
judiciary.”  In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 105 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2004-Ohio-
7354, 826 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 6} In his supplemental affidavit, Mr. Hanudel avers that Judge Russo 
demonstrated bias by issuing an entry after he filed his affidavit of disqualification, 
in violation of R.C. 2701.03(D).  Pursuant to R.C. 2701.03(D)(1), if the clerk of 
this court accepts an affidavit of disqualification for filing, the affidavit generally 
“deprives the judge against whom the affidavit was filed of any authority to preside 
in the proceeding until the chief justice * * * rules on the affidavit.”  However, R.C. 
2701.03(D)(4) further provides that if, after the chief justice denies an affidavit of 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
disqualification, “a second or subsequent affidavit of disqualification regarding the 
same judge and the same proceeding is filed * * * by counsel for the same party 
who filed or on whose behalf was filed the affidavit that was denied, the judge 
against whom the second or subsequent affidavit is filed may proceed in the 
proceeding prior to the ruling of the chief justice.”  Here, the chief justice already 
denied two affidavits of disqualification against Judge Russo filed by Mr. 
Hanudel’s client.  See case Nos. 17-AP-001 and 17-AP-076.  Judge Russo therefore 
had authority to “proceed in the proceeding” prior to the ruling on the third affidavit 
in this case. 
{¶ 7} Finally, Mr. Hanudel claims that Judge Russo’s recent entry shows 
bias because she threatened to strike his e-filed motion for failing to deliver a 
“courtesy copy” to her office.  There is no indication in the record, however, that 
Judge Russo struck the motion. 
{¶ 8} For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is denied. 
________________________