Opinion ID: 518333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: motion for judgment n.o.v.

Text: 14 Duke contends that the trial court should have granted judgment to him notwithstanding the verdict since, even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Pfizer, the evidence points so strongly in his favor that pattern of acts that had recurred frequently within the limitation period and that were intended to provoke Duke into an action for which he could be terminated. Sumner, 427 Mich. at 539, 398 N.W.2d at 383. X. DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGE 15 Finally, Duke argues that he should have been granted a new trial since the trial judge failed to disqualify himself. Duke says he learned after the trial that, some years before, when a complaint had been filed concerning the judge's conduct, he had been represented by two lawyers from the same law firm that represented Pfizer and Mattioli during this trial. The representation terminated more than two years prior to trial. In his opinion denying the motion for new trial, the district judge pointed out that lawyers from that same firm had also been involved in pursuing the complaint against him. 16 Duke contends that the applicable statute required the district judge to disqualify himself, sua sponte: 17 Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate 18 (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 19 (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: 20 (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding[.] 21 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a), (b)(1) (Supp.1988). 22 In his attempt to demonstrate actual bias in support of disqualification under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b)(1), Duke relies upon much of the conduct by the trial judge which we have pointed out above does not amount to error in presiding over the trial. Accordingly, we would be hard-pressed to a judgment should be vacated pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), for a violation of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455. In Liljeberg, close scrutiny was undoubtedly warranted, since the case had been tried to the court. The judgment in this case, by contrast, was the product of a trial to a jury. Furthermore, as noted above, the trial judge in this case did not violate 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455. 23 However, even if 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a) had been violated, utilization of the harmless error analysis set out in Liljeberg would still result in our affirmance of the denial of Duke's motion for a new trial. According to the Supreme Court, it is appropriate to consider the risk of injustice to the parties in the particular case, the risk that the denial of relief will produce injustice in other cases, and the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the judicial process. Liljeberg, 100 L.Ed.2d at 875. 24 In this case, it is clear that, in view of the absence of actual bias or the appearance of bias in the conduct of the trial, the weight of the evidence against Duke, and the expense to Pfizer in defending this case, great injustice would result to Pfizer if this case were to be retried, with little likelihood that there would be a different result. 25 Second, since it cannot be said that the facts upon which Duke claims the trial judge should be disqualified are remarkable, by allowing the judgment to stand we will not be encouraging judges in future cases to ignore grounds for disqualification. And, finally, denying relief will not undermine the public's confidence in the judicial process, since a reasonable member of the public, knowing and weighing all the relevant facts, would conclude that Duke was fairly dealt with by the judicial process. In fact, such a person would be offended if we were to subject the judicial process to the expense and inconvenience of a new trial.