Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02143/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02143-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

Renee M. Zinni and Marco S. D'Alonzo, a

married couple, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Jackson White PC, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-02143-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us plaintiffs' motion for recusal (doc. 12), defendants' response (doc.

16), and plaintiffs' reply (doc. 17). Plaintiffs contend recusal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.

§ 455(a) because we have ruled against them in a related case.

Section 455(a) provides that a judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in

which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." We ask "whether a reasonable

person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might

reasonably be questioned." United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008)

(quoting Clemens v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175,

1178 (9th Cir. 2005)). "The 'reasonable person' is not someone who is 'hypersensitive or

unduly suspicious,' but rather is a 'well-informed, thoughtful observer.'" Id. (quoting In re

Mason, 916 F.2d 384, 386 (7th Cir. 1990)).

Plaintiffs allege no facts supporting recusal other than our ruling in a related case. A

Case 2:11-cv-02143-FJM Document 18 Filed 11/30/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d

934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983). As the

Supreme Court stated in Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994), opinions formed

in prior proceedings do not constitute a basis for disqualification unless they display

favoritism or antagonism that make fair judgment impossible. There is no basis to suggest

favoritism or antagonism here. All we did was rule on motions in good faith. And the

accuracy of those rulings are subject to further review on appeal from the judgment in CV09-2035-PHX-FJM.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs' motion for recusal (doc. 12).

DATED this 30th day of November, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-02143-FJM Document 18 Filed 11/30/11 Page 2 of 2