Opinion ID: 3010542
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dismissal of the Individual Appellees

Text: The district court dismissed claims against the 22 individual appellees for lack of personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in an order on March 11, 1994. MSL, 846 F. Supp. 374 (E.D. Pa. 1994). The court, upon reconsideration and after MSL had conducted some discovery, found on May 31, 1994, that MSL could not “suggest, much less show, 22. We do note, however, that there is no probative evidence that the AALS or LSAC was involved in any kind of conspiracy with the ABA. 36 substantial acts in Pennsylvania.” MSL, 853 F. Supp. 843, 845 (E.D. Pa. 1994). MSL challenges the dismissal on the grounds that it was entered before MSL was allowed to undertake any discovery as to the appellees' contacts within the district. Our rule is generally that jurisdictional discovery should be allowed unless the plaintiff's claim is clearly frivolous. Nehemiah v. The Athletics Congress, 765 F.2d 42, 48 (3d Cir. 1985), citing Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee v. L’Union Atlantique S.A. D’Assurances, 723 F.2d 357, 362 (3d Cir. 1983). The district court found (at least by implication), and we agree, that MSL's jurisdictional claims were clearly frivolous. Our result is in accord with other cases which hold that a mere unsupported allegation that the defendant “transacts business” in an area is “clearly frivolous.” See Garshman v. Universal Resources Holding, Inc., 641 F. Supp. 1359, 1366 (D.N.J. 1986), aff'd on other grounds, 824 F.2d 223 (3d Cir. 1987);23 see also American Centennial Ins. Co. v. Handal, 901 F. Supp. 892, 899 (D.N.J. 1995). MSL legitimately cannot allege a nationwide conspiracy and then say, without more evidence, that such a conspiracy must have effects in Pennsylvania. Further, jurisdictional discovery generally relates to corporate defendants and the question of whether they are “doing business” in the state. See Compagnie Des Bauxites, 723 F.2d at 362 and cases cited therein. Where the defendant is an 23. Garshman was decided on venue grounds, but the analysis is the same as for personal jurisdiction. Garshman, 641 F. Supp. at 1366. 37 individual, the presumption in favor of discovery is reduced. See Shaw v. Boyd, 658 F. Supp. 89, 91 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1987). Thus, the district court's order dismissing the individual appellees without ordering discovery first was correct.24 E. Recusal of Judge Ditter MSL made several attempts to have Judge Ditter recused. Judge Ditter denied MSL's recusal motion in an opinion dated December 16, 1994. MSL, 872 F. Supp. 1346 (E.D. Pa. 1994). MSL's attempts to seek his recusal in this court were also unavailing (one denied, one held moot in light of this appeal). Inasmuch as we are affirming the summary judgment, we need not consider arguments regarding reassignment on remand. We review the denial of the recusal motion for abuse of discretion. MSL argues that Judge Ditter has both the appearance of bias and actual bias, and should be removed from the case under either 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) or this court's authority as recognized in Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 167 (3d Cir. 1993), and Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 98 (3d Cir. 1992). The standard for recusal is whether an objective observer reasonably might question the judge's impartiality. MSL contends that both one past out-of-court experience, and the bias which it asserts is apparent from his rulings, justify Judge Ditter's recusal. 24. We note that in view of our merits disposition we can conceive of no way that the individual appellees could be liable in this case. 38 MSL argues that Judge Ditter's participation in 1974-75 on an outside committee which tried to help the Delaware Law School, where his son was then a student, obtain ABA accreditation justifies recusal. In over 200 pages of documents submitted by MSL relating to Delaware Law School (gleaned from depositions and testimony before several courts), Judge Ditter's name appears only six times. This evidence suggests nothing more than that Judge Ditter had several meetings with the person who was the driving force behind the effort to make changes at Delaware Law School in order to qualify for accreditation. There is one affidavit from the former dean of that school that suggests that Judge Ditter played a more active role, but Judge Ditter, in his careful consideration of the recusal motion, sufficiently points out the inconsistencies between this declaration and other more contemporaneous testimony. See MSL, 872 F. Supp. 1346, 1358-65 (E.D. Pa. 1994). We thus affirm Judge Ditter's holding that nothing related to Delaware Law School creates an appearance of bias in this case. This is true both because of Judge Ditter's limited role at the time and the amount of time which has passed. This view is in accord with the prevailing case law. See, e.g., In re Allied Signal, Inc., 891 F.2d 974, 976 (1st Cir. 1989) (upholding denial of recusal motion based on social and business relationship eight years earlier between judge and one of plaintiff's attorneys); Alexander v. Chicago Park Dist., 773 F.2d 850, 857 (7th Cir. 1985) (denying recusal motion based on judge's representation of witness 25 years earlier). 39 Furthermore, we do not understand why Judge Ditter's participation in the Delaware Law School accreditation process, no matter how intensive, would cause an objective observer to believe that he would not be impartial here. The Delaware Law School and MSL situations, though somewhat similar in nature, are unrelated. Indeed, it is difficult even to articulate a reasonable basis on which to argue that by reason of Judge Ditter's experiences regarding the Delaware Law School he would have a bias here. As far as we can see, there is no more basis to think that Judge Ditter was not impartial here because of his experiences 20 years ago with Delaware Law School, than to believe that a judge who had been in an automobile accident would not be impartial in a case involving a different accident. MSL also argues that Judge Ditter's rulings, both in substance (allegedly always against MSL) and in form (allegedly repeatedly vilifying and condemning MSL and its dean), demonstrate actual bias. Since we have affirmed several of the rulings MSL contends demonstrate bias, and a review of the record shows that there was no pattern of consistently ruling against MSL, there is no actual bias. We also point out that a judge's consistent pattern of ruling against a party could be entirely justified for that party might consistently be taking positions that cannot be supported. Even-handed justice does not require a judge to balance numerically the rulings in favor of and against each party. After all, each ruling stands on its own. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has said that “judicial rulings alone almost never 40 constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994).25 We do not believe that a reasonable person who looked at Judge Ditter's rulings objectively would find the appearance of bias. See United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384, 1413 (3d Cir. 1994). It should be apparent to anyone that he worked diligently in this hard-fought case and, as far as we are concerned, reached the correct outcome. We also do not find that any of Judge Ditter's comments cited by MSL, see MSL br. at 23-25, suggest the appearance of partiality. The Liteky Court held that “judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” 510 U.S. at 555, 114 S.Ct. at 1157; see also In re Skobinsky, 167 B.R. 45, 52 (E.D. Pa. 1994). MSL's desire to impute hostile intent to Judge Ditter does not mean he had that intent, and does not create an appearance of bias. MSL's attitude appears to be that anyone who disagrees with it is both wrong and biased, but the evidence does not show this. The cases cited by MSL are inapplicable because they dealt with unique extrajudicial contact with a party, In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992), an implicit admission of bias by the judge, In re Antar, 71 F.3d 97, 101 (3d Cir. 1995), or reassignment on remand, Haines and Alexander. Since this case will not be remanded, we need not consider 25. The holding in Liteky required bias to stem from an “extrajudicial source” to support a recusal under section 455(a). 41 reassignment and, as we discussed, Judge Ditter's denial of the recusal motion was not an abuse of discretion. F. Disqualification of Inside Counsel MSL also appeals the district court's disqualification of five members of MSL’s administration and faculty from serving as trial counsel, giving oral argument, and taking depositions.26 Since MSL does not allege that it received incompetent counsel, and we are affirming the summary judgment order, the issue probably is moot. In any event, the court did not err in requiring the disqualification.