Title: In re Disqualification of Forchione

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Forchione, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-884.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF FORCHIONE. 
BERRY v. KINAST ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Forchione, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2013-Ohio-884.] 
Judges—Affidavit of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Judge’s ruling striking 
affiants’ jury demand not shown to be product of bias or prejudice—
Judge’s expression of frustration with affiants not sufficient to warrant 
disqualification—Affidavit denied. 
(Nos. 13-AP-006 and 13-AP-007—Decided January 28, 2013.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Stark County Court of Common Pleas 
Case No. 2011-CV-03120. 
__________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Steven J. Hupp and Ronald A. Margolis, counsel for defendants, 
have filed affidavits with the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to 
disqualify Judge Frank G. Forchione from presiding over further proceedings in 
case No. 2011-CV-03120, a medical-malpractice and wrongful-death action now 
pending for trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County. 
{¶ 2} Hupp and Margolis allege that Judge Forchione is biased and 
prejudiced in favor of plaintiff because, at a January 22, 2013 oral hearing, he 
granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ jury demand.  According to Hupp, 
Judge Forchione’s decision was “baseless” and “fundamentally unfair” and 
violates his clients’ constitutional rights to a jury trial.  In addition, Margolis 
claims that Judge Forchione’s “mannerisms, tone of voice and overall dismissal of 
constitutionally protected rights and applicable law” at the January 22 hearing 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
demonstrate that he lacks judicial objectivity.  On January 24, 2013, Hupp and 
Margolis submitted a transcript of the January 22 oral hearing. 
{¶ 3} Judge Forchione has responded in writing to the concerns raised in 
the affidavits.  Judge Forchione explains that he granted plaintiff’s motion to 
strike defendants’ jury demand because the defense did not timely pay jury costs.  
He further asserts that at the January 22 oral hearing, he treated all attorneys in a 
professional and respectful manner. 
{¶ 4} For the following reasons, no basis has been established to order 
the disqualification of Judge Forchione. 
{¶ 5} First, contrary to affiants’ assertions, it is well established that 
“[r]ulings that are adverse to a party in a pending case and with which a party 
disagrees or is dissatisfied are not grounds for disqualification, even if those 
rulings later are reversed on appeal.”  In re Disqualification of Sheward, 77 Ohio 
St.3d 1258, 1259, 674 N.E.2d 365 (1996), citing In re Disqualification of Murphy, 
36 Ohio St.3d 605, 522 N.E.2d 459 (1988).  An affidavit-of-disqualification 
proceeding addresses the narrow issue of the possible bias or prejudice of a judge, 
and “[i]t is not a vehicle to contest matters of substantive or procedural law 
* * *.”  In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2003-Ohio-5484, 
798 N.E.2d 3, ¶ 4.  Accordingly, it is not within the scope of this proceeding to 
evaluate or review Judge Forchione’s decision striking defendants’ jury demand.  
The remedy for this and other legal claims, if any, lies on appeal, not through the 
filing of an affidavit of disqualification.  In re Disqualification of Russo, 110 Ohio 
St.3d 1208, 2005-Ohio-7146, 850 N.E.2d 713, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 6} Second, the transcript from the January 22 hearing does not 
demonstrate that Judge Forchione is partial to plaintiff or that he has a bias against 
defendants or their counsel.  To be sure, if a judge’s words or actions convey the 
impression that the judge has developed a “ ‘hostile feeling or spirit of ill will,’ ” 
or if the judge has reached a “ ‘fixed anticipatory judgment’ ” that will prevent the 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
judge from hearing the case with “ ‘an open state of mind * * * governed by the 
law and the facts,’ ” then the judge should not remain on the case.  In re 
Disqualification of Hoover, 113 Ohio St.3d 1233, 2006-Ohio-7234, 863 N.E.2d 
634, ¶ 7, quoting State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463, 469, 132 
N.E.2d 191 (1956).  Here, Judge Forchione expressed frustration with Margolis 
for failing to timely deposit jury costs and to timely file motions in limine, and 
Judge Forchione repeatedly stated that he was “disturbed” because the trial had 
already been continued once and one of the defendants had not made himself 
available for a deposition.  But “[j]udges are certainly entitled to express 
dissatisfaction with attorneys’ dilatory tactics inside and outside the courtroom,” 
as long as that dissatisfaction is “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.  Even if affiants are ultimately correct in that they could not timely 
deposit jury fees pursuant to the magistrate’s scheduling order, nothing about the 
tone or nature of the judge’s comments would cause a reasonable and objective 
observer to harbor serious doubts about the judge’s impartiality.  The transcript 
shows that Margolis and Judge Forchione strongly disagreed about when 
defendants should have deposited jury fees and that Judge Forchione was 
frustrated with what he perceived as defense counsel’s dilatory tactics.  But the 
transcript does not conclusively establish that Judge Forchione has a “hostile 
feeling or spirit of ill will” against the affiants mandating his disqualification. 
{¶ 7} Moreover, Judge Forchione expressed similar frustration with 
plaintiff’s counsel when he denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an untimely 
motion for summary judgment (“It doesn’t seem like it’s fair to the defense to file 
this summary judgment.  Again, I am getting concerned with things being filed 
past the deadlines”).  And the judge admonished all counsel for failing to bring 
their clients to the hearing (“Nobody is taking this Court very seriously.  That’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
what I am starting to see”).  These facts undercut affiants’ claims that the judge 
exhibited partiality. 
{¶ 8} “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.  Those presumptions have not been overcome in 
this case. 
{¶ 9} For the reasons stated above, the affidavits of disqualification are 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Forchione. 
_______________________