UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

KYLE DAVIS and BETTY DAVIS, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

TRANE U.S., INC. d/b/a TRANE, 

a foreign corporation, 

Defendant. 

 

Case No. 2:15-cv-11125 

Hon. Avern Cohn 

Hon. Elizabeth A. Stafford, 

Magistrate Judge 

Memorandum RE: Reassignment for Recusal (Doc. #207) 

On September 17, 2019, the Court entered an order of recusal without 

explanation. This memorandum describes the reasons. 

This is a long pending products liability case. In March 2019 the lawyers for 

Plaintiffs and Defendant gave their approval for the Court to attempt to settle the case. 

The Court met with the lawyer for Plaintiffs in chambers separately. The Court 

was unable to effectuate a settlement. 

The Court held a final pretrial conference on September 16, 2019. At the 

conference, the Court discussed witness and exhibit lists, the verdict form, and jury 

instructions. The Court also denied Plaintiffs’ warranty claim, and considered and ruled 

on motions in limine. Rulings on several of the motions in limine had the effect of 

narrowing the issues at trial. Plaintiffs’ lawyer objected, and stated the following: 

“Based on these rulings that you have made today, we have no viable 

lawsuit in many respects...and I think that if Defendant filed a motion for 

summary judgment in this case at this point based on your rulings they 

would be entitled to it.” (ECF No. 206, PageID. 8009-8010). 

After the conference, the Court met with Defendant’s lawyer separately, and 

discussed settlement amounts less than Plaintiffs had previously sought. Defendant’s 

Case 2:15-cv-11125-AJT-EAS ECF No. 210, PageID.8023 Filed 09/18/19 Page 1 of 2
lawyer said he would speak with his client and inform the Court of his client’s position as 

soon as possible. 

On September 17, Defendant’s lawyer met with the Court and informed the Court 

that his client was willing to settle for a low seven number figure. 

The Court immediately contacted Plaintiffs’ lawyers and requested an in person 

meeting that day to discuss the offer. Upon arrival, Plaintiffs’ lawyer informed the Court 

they would not discuss any matter without Defendant’s lawyer present. The Court then 

called Defendant’s lawyer, who participated in the meeting via phone. 

At the meeting, Plaintiffs’ lawyer told the Court the meeting with Defendant’s lawyer 

after the pretrial conference on September 16 was in violation of Code of Judicial 

Conduct Rule 2.9, which prohibits ex parte communication.1 Plaintiffs’ lawyer said he 

would be filing a motion for recusal on these grounds. Defendant’s lawyer did not object. 

As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court recused itself from further 

participation in this case. 

 

                                                            

1According to Rule 2.9(A)(4) a judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer 

separately with the parties and their lawyers in an effort to settle matters pending before 

the judge. 

Dated: September 18, 2019 

 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-11125-AJT-EAS ECF No. 210, PageID.8024 Filed 09/18/19 Page 2 of 2