FO R PUB L ICAT IO N JUDICIAL CO UNCIL O F T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
IN RE CO M PL A INT O F JUDICIAL M ISCO NDUCT No. 13-90031 O RDE R

K O Z I NSKI , C hie f Judge : C om pla ina nt, princ ipa l owne r of a

fina nc ia l group, a lle ge s tha

t a ba nkruptc y judge re fuse d to a

p p oint thegroup a s a

n a dvisor in two ba

nkruptc y c a s e s due to pe rsona l a

nim us. C om p la ina nt c la im s tha

t the an im us a rise s out of a

pre vious c a se whe re the fina

nc ia l group wa s a

ppointe d a s a

n a dvisor to the

ba nkruptc y e sta te . In that c a s e , the judge e nte re d

m ultiple orde rs a

pproving the fina

nc ia l group’ s a ppointm e nt. Ea c h of the orde rs inc lude d a m onthly c a p on the fe e s the fina

nc ia l group wa s e ntitle d to bill, but the group substa

ntia lly e xc e e de d the se c a

ps a lm ost
e ve ry m onth it wa s re ta ine d. Whe n it c am e tim e for the judge to a p prove the group’ s fina l fe e a

pplic ation, hede nie d a

ny fe e s in e xc e s s of the c a

ppe d lim its. The n, in two subse que nt c a se s, the judge c ite d the group’ s fa i lure to c om ply with the s e orde rs a s his re a s on for de ny ing its a ppointm e nt a s a dvisor. Thejudge ha s
m a de it c le ar that

he will not a

ppoint the group in futurec a se s. 

# FIL ED
AUG 05 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSpag e 2

The de c i sion whe the r to a pprove the a

ppointm e nt of a

profe ssiona l to de live r se rvic e s to a ba

nkruptc y e sta te is a m e rits ruling tha

t is not norma l ly

se c ondgue sse d in a judic ia l m i s c onduc t proc e e ding. Se e C om m e nta ry to Judic ia lC onduc t R

ule 3 (“ Any

a lle gation tha

t c a lls into que stion thec orre c tne ss of a n offic ia l a c tion of a

judge

— without more
— i s m e rits-re late d ” ); In re C om pla int of Judic ia l M isc onduc t, 583 F.3d 598, 598 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ [C ] la i m s [tha t ] re late to the m e rits of thejudge ’ s rulings . . . m ust . . . bedism isse d” ). Howe ve r, a m e rits ruling m a y c onstitute

m isc onduc t if it is influe

nc e d by an invidious fac tor or a

n im pe rm issiblem otive . Se e C om m e nta ry to Judic ia l-C onduc t R

u l e 3 (“ [a ] n a lle gation tha

t a judge rule d a ga inst the c om pla ina nt be c a u se the c om

pla ina nt is a
m e m b e r of a pa rtic ula r ra c ia l or e thnic group, or be c a use the judge dislike s the
c om pla i na nt pe rsona l ly ” is c ogniz a

ble a s m isc onduc t). C om pla ina nt se e ks to show im

p e rm i ssible m o tive by noting tha t the judge ’ s fe e s orde r in the origina l c a s e wa s re v e rse d on a ppe a l. In his view , the re ve rsa l shows tha t the judge e rre d in im

posing thefe e c a

ps a nd, the re fore , the judge ’ s unha ppine ss with the

fina nc ia l group’ s fa ilure to a dhe re to the c a ps is unre a sona

ble
and c onstitute s pe rsona l a nim us. C om pla ina nt a lso points to the

judge ’ s c om

m e nts following re ve rsa l and whe n he de nie d a

p pointm e n t in the two subse que nt c a se s: On a l l thre e oc c a sions, thejudge e xpre sse d c ha grin tha t the fina nc ia l grouppag e 3

pre v a i le d on a ppe a l ba se d on wha

t the judge c ha

ra c te riz e d a s a

te c hnic a lity
. B e fore turning to the

que stion of m otive , I note tha t a judge ’ s public
c om m e n ts c an the m se lve s c o nstitute m isc onduc t if the y are suffic ie ntly

rude , de rogatory

or inte m pe rate . Se e Judic ia l-C onduc t R ule 3(h)(1)(D) (“ M isc onduc t inc l ude s . . . tre ating litiga nts or a ttorne y s in a

de m onstra

bly e g re gious a

nd hostile
m anne r” ). The c om

m e nts he re do not m e e t tha t sta nda rd. The judge did not use de m e aning la

ngua ge or he a

p a buse on a ny body . His sta

t e m e nts we re blunt but
m e a sure d e xpre ssions of frustra tion with ha

ving his orders disre ga

rde d by som e one in whom he ha d pla c e d c onfide nc e . For e xam ple , in one c a se whe re the judge
re fuse d to a

ppoint thefina

n c ia l group, he sa i d, “ Find som e body e lse . . . . The re ’ s no que stion in m

y m ind tha t the y viola te d [m y ] orde r [in a

pre vious c a se ]
re ga rdle s s of wha

t the B AP did. . . . I don’ t ha ve c onfide nc e in the m . ” In a nothe r c a se he sa id, “ I’ ve ha d

a history with the m

of the m not following c ourt orde rs in
m y opinion a nd I’ m not going to a

ppoint [the m ] . . . . The y

viola te d [m y orde r in a pre v ious c a se ]
. For te c hnic a l re a sons I got re ve rse d, but I’ m not hiring them

in this
c a se . I ha ve no c onfide nc e in the ir a bilitie s.” The se c om

m e nts we re not rude or inte m pe ra te ; the y

forthrightly

re fle c te d the judge ’ s la c k of trust in the group ba se d on its prior c onduc t. Nor do the judge ’ s c om

m e nts re fle c t a

n im p e rm issiblem otive . In m aking apag e 4

disc re tiona

ry a p pointm e n t

to a position of trust, a judge m ay re ly on his own prior
e xpe rie nc e with thea

pplic ants for thea

ppointm e nt. The judge ’ s re fusa l to a ppoint the fina nc ia l group in subse que nt c a s e s wa s c onsiste nt with his obse rvation tha

t it ha d disre ga

rde d his orde rs in the pa st a

nd he c ould the re fore not trust them to pe rform fa ithfully

in the future . While the judge wa s re v e rse d for ba sing his de c ision on the

wrong sta

tutory provision, the

re vie wing c ourt le ft ope n the possibility

tha t he c o u ld ha

ve lim ite d the fina

n c ia l group’ s fe e s, ha d

he re lie d on a diffe re nt c ode se c tion. The judge wa s thus justifie d in be lie ving tha t his limita tion
wa s substa

ntive ly sound a nd should ha

ve be e n c om

plie d with by the fina nc ia l group. It wa s not misc onduc t , or e ve n wrong, for thejudge to c onside r the group’ s re pe ate d re fusa l to a

bide by the fina nc ia l lim its he se t in a

pa st c a se in m aking future a ppointm e nts. Inde e d, it would ha ve be e n irre sponsiblefor the judge to disre ga rd the group’ s prior re c o rd. C om pla ina nt’ s a lle g ations of misc onduc t a re dism isse d a s unsupporte d. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); In reC om pla i nt of Judic ia l M isc onduc t, 569 F.3d 1093, 1093 (9th C ir. 2009).
DISM I SSE D.