Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-canb-3_06-ap-03124/USCOURTS-canb-3_06-ap-03124-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States Trustee
Plaintiff
Willie E. Phillips
Defendant

Document Text:

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

MEMORANDUM -1-

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re

WILLIE E. PHILLIPS,

Debtor.

 

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

WILLIE E. PHILLIPS,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-30590 TEC 7

Chapter 7

Adv. Proc. No. 06-3124 TC

(transferred from Bankr. 

S.D. Cal.)

MEMORANDUM RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

 OF TRIAL DATE AND FOR RECUSAL OF TRIAL JUDGE

This court held a hearing on August 3, 2007 re Defendant’s

motion for continuance of trial, and for recusal of the undersigned

judge. Bruce P. Zelis appeared for Defendant. Minnie Loo appeared

for Plaintiff.

Plaintiff did not object to Defendant’s motion to continue,

Signed and Filed: August 07, 2007

________________________________________

THOMAS E. CARLSON

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

________________________________________

Entered on Docket 

August 07, 2007

GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK 

U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 06-03124 Doc# 38 Filed: 08/07/07 Entered: 08/07/07 16:36:18 Page 1 of 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

MEMORANDUM -2-

and the court continued the trial to November 27, 2007, and

extended the discovery cutoff until October 29, 2007. 

Defendant’s motion to recuse asserts that a reasonable person

would question my impartiality because: (1) I enforced a decision

by the three judges of the Oakland division of this court that

Defendant should not be appointed as counsel for the debtor in

possession in any chapter 11 case; (2) I ruled against Defendant’s

client in a recent case in which Defendant believes I should have

ruled in favor of his client; and (3) I will be called as a witness

in the present case because the complaint refers to the above-noted

decision by the three Oakland judges.

Defendant’s motion does not state grounds for disqualification

under 28 U.S.C. § 455 for the following reasons.

Grounds (1) and (2) do not involve either knowledge obtained

from an extra-judicial source or evince favoritism or antagonism

that would make fair judgment impossible. The Supreme Court has

set forth the following text: 

First, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a

valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. . . . 

Second, opinions formed by the judge on the basis of

facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the

current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not

constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless

they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that

would make fair judgment impossible. 

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (emphasis

added). With respect to knowledge obtained in prior

proceedings, the Court explained:

“Impartiality is not gullibility. Disinterestedness does

not mean child-like innocence. If the judge did not form

judgments of the actors in those court-house dramas

called trials, he could never render decisions.” In re

J.P. Linahan, Inc., 138 F.2d 650, 654 (CA2 1943). Also

not subject to deprecatory characterization as “bias” or 

Case: 06-03124 Doc# 38 Filed: 08/07/07 Entered: 08/07/07 16:36:18 Page 2 of 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

MEMORANDUM -3-

“prejudice” are opinions held by judges as a result of

what they learned in earlier proceedings. It has long

been regarded as normal and proper for a judge to sit in

the same case upon its remand, and to sit in successive

trials involving the same defendant.

Id. at 451. 

Nor does ground (3) establish a basis for recusal. I do not

have knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the

proceeding, such that I may be called as a witness. Although the

complaint does refer to the decision of the three Oakland judges,

my sole role was to enforce that decision against Mr. Phillips as I

would enforce an applicable prior ruling by any court of competent

jurisdiction. 

**END OF MEMORANDUM**

Case: 06-03124 Doc# 38 Filed: 08/07/07 Entered: 08/07/07 16:36:18 Page 3 of 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

Court Service List

Willie E. Phillips, Esq.

484 Lake Park Avenue, Suite 335

Oakland, CA 94610

Bruce P. Zelis, Esq.

Law Offices of Bruce P. Zelis

1943 1st Avenue

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Minnie Loo, Esq.

Office of the U.S. Trustee

1301 Clay Street, Suite 690N

Oakland, CA 94612-5217 

Case: 06-03124 Doc# 38 Filed: 08/07/07 Entered: 08/07/07 16:36:18 Page 4 of 4