Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01442/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01442-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Sandra Bronick, a single woman,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 

Company; et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-01442-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse the Honorable James A. 

Teilborg Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 144 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 455 (the “Motion”) (Doc. 76). 

Plaintiff’s counsel has also filed what he calls an “Affidavit” of Facts and Reasons in 

Support of Her Motion to Recuse (Doc. 77). 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff seeks to recuse the undersigned because Defendant’s medical witness saw 

the undersigned twice as a patient, and because the undersigned’s former law firm utilized 

the services of the same medical witness in the past for independent medical evaluations 

(“IMEs”). Out of an abundance of precaution, the undersigned advised the parties before 

oral argument on Defendant’s pending motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 65), 

that he had twice seen Dr. Hartzler, an orthopedist, for minor orthopedic issues. The 

undersigned explained to the parties that he had seen Dr. Hartzler most recently within the 

preceding few months, and that he had concluded that given the circumstances there was 

no basis for recusal. 

Case 2:11-cv-01442-JAT Document 81 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Plaintiff’s counsel has attached Exhibit A to the Affidavit (Doc. 77-1) which 

consists of seven cases in which Dr. Hartzler was hired by the undersigned’s former law 

firm to perform IMEs. However, only two of the cases occurred when the undersigned 

was a member of the firm and the undersigned did not work on either case directly. The 

remaining five cases occurred in 2006, 2007, and 2008, long after the undersigned left the 

firm to go on the bench in 2000. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel argues that, 

Judge Teilborg obviously trusted Dr. Hartzler while he was in 

private practice else he would not have allowed his firm to 

hire [Dr. Hartzler] to perform IMEs. Most importantly 

however, is the fact that Judge Teilborg entrusted Dr. Hartzler 

with his own health. 

(Doc. 77 at 4). Therefore, counsel concludes that the undersigned is inherently biased to 

trusting Defendant’s physician. (Id.). Given this conclusion, Plaintiff’s counsel then 

assumes that Dr. Hartzler will be called as a witness at trial and contends, 

If Judge Teilborg does not recuse himself, Plaintiff is faced 

with the task of putting the Judge’s treating physician on the 

stand and explaining to the Judge and jury why the Judge’s 

own physician’s opinions are tainted by financial bias; why 

the Judge’s physician should not be trusted; and why the 

hiring of Dr. Hartzler—an action Judge Teilborg’s previous 

firm routinely practiced—amounts to bad faith. 

(Id.). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel argues that based on an objective standard of 

reasonableness the undersigned’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned requiring 

the undersigned to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. (Id.). 

II. ANALYSIS 

 Section 455 is a self-analysis conducted by the undersigned. Section 144 states: 

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes 

and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before 

whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice 

either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge 

shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be 

assigned to hear such proceeding. 

The affidavit shall state the facts and reasons for the belief 

Case 2:11-cv-01442-JAT Document 81 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than 

ten days before the beginning of the term at which the 

proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for 

failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one 

such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a 

certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good 

faith. 

 In an abundance of caution and pursuant to section 144, the Court refers this 

motion to another district court judge to determine if the undersigned should recuse 

himself.1

 

 However, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to comply with section 144. 

Under this statute, Plaintiff must file a sufficient affidavit. While Plaintiff’s counsel titled 

the pleading “Affidavit of Facts and Reasons in Support of Her Motion” (Doc. 77), the 

pleading is not an affidavit by definition, much less an affidavit by the Plaintiff herself. 

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, an affidavit is “a voluntary declaration of facts 

written down and sworn to by the declarant before an officer authorized to administer 

oaths.” Black’s Law Dictionary 66 (9th ed. 2009). Plaintiff’s Motion is a pleading 

written by Plaintiff’s counsel with no indication that it was sworn to by counsel or 

Plaintiff under oath, nor is the pleading made under an unsworn declaration under penalty 

of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. In spite of these short comings, the Court will 

still construe Plaintiff’s filing as an affidavit for purposes of referring the section 144 

motion to another judge for decision. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, 

// 

// 

// 

// 

 

1

 The Clerk of the Court has randomly drawn the Honorable Neil V. Wake United 

States District Judge to hear Plaintiff’s Motion. 

Case 2:11-cv-01442-JAT Document 81 Filed 05/30/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse the Honorable 

James A. Teilborg Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 144 (Doc. 76) is reassigned to the Honorable 

Neil V. Wake United States District Judge. 

 Dated this 29th day of May, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-01442-JAT Document 81 Filed 05/30/13 Page 4 of 4