Opinion ID: 1664066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count 2: The Village Apartments v. Cynthia Baugh, and the Village Apartments v. Cynthia Watkins

Text: ¶ 10. On December 12, 2005, Sutton presided over the cases of The Village Apartments v. Cynthia Baugh, Docket 2531, Page 72, and The Village Apartments v. Cynthia Watkins, Docket 2531, Page 194. The plaintiffs were represented by David Dogan. In both cases, the plaintiff sought to remove the defendants from their apartments due to alleged lease violations, which did not involve past-due rent. ¶ 11. After hearing testimony on Watkins's case, Sutton told the parties he wished to inspect Watkins's apartment and instructed the parties to meet him at the office of the apartment complex during the noon recess. Sylvia Carraway, president of the Village Apartments, Dogan, the apartment manager, and two apartment security guards waited for Sutton during the recess, but Sutton failed to appear. Dogan attempted to contact Sutton twice while the parties were waiting by calling Sutton's office at the Hinds County Justice Court. Dogan then returned to the court for a hearing at 1:30 p.m. Sutton testified that he was unable to attend the noon meeting but never explained the reason for his absence. ¶ 12. The Commission found that Sutton publicly chastised Dogan in open court before a courtroom crowded with spectators and litigants for attempting to contact Sutton during the noon recess. This finding is supported by Dogan's testimony that he felt abused in front of an absolute[ly] packed courtroom. Dogan also stated, Judge Sutton's got [such] a commanding voice that there wasn't anybody that was listening that didn't hear that this lawyer had been just absolutely put down. Sutton disputes this finding, claiming that he did not publicly chastise Dogan because his admonishment of Dogan took place at the bench. ¶ 13. After allegedly admonishing Dogan, Sutton ruled that both cases were to be held in abeyance. A note in the docket on December 13, 2005, in Watkins's case reflects this ruling: abeyancesix months if she compliesdismiss after time expires. On March 27, 2006, Sutton entered judgment for the plaintiff in the Watkins case. A note in the docket in Ms. Baugh's case states, Hold in abeyance for three months. If Baugh complies, the removal will be dismissed. The Commission found that Sutton failed to make a final ruling in either case, each case being held in abeyance for a specific period of time while the tenants continued to live in their respective apartments. ¶ 14. On December 13, 2005, the day after the hearing, Sutton visited the Village Apartments to inspect the apartments of Baugh and Watkins. Sutton called ahead to notify the apartment manager of the visit, but Dogan, the Village Apartments' attorney, was not present during the visit. Sutton visited Watkins's apartment and told Watkins he was holding her case in abeyance.