Opinion ID: 6934946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ill The Motion for Recusal

Text: Moideen also contends that the district court should have granted the motion to recuse the district judge. Moideen complains that the judge told the parties, inter alia: (1) that his brother purchased a company with a self-funded health benefit plan without knowing the possible economic consequences posed by large claims and that the company was close to being bankrupted by large benefit claims; (2) that self-funding by a group of small business employers is “nonsense” funding; and (3) that risk sharing by employers who are subject to assessments for a proportionate share of additional sums necessary to make up for any shortfall in trust assets to pay claims constitutes a “worst ease” funding scenario. Moideen asked the judge to recuse himself, but the judge refused and referred Moideen’s motion to another judge for a ruling. The other judge denied Moideen’s motion. We review the district court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. Sewer Alert Committee v. Pierce County, 791 F.2d 796, 798 (9th Cir.1986). “[Rjecusal is appropriate where a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.1993) (citing 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 144, 455) (internal quotes omitted). Although the judge’s statements did indicate that he was concerned about unfunded benefit plans, these statements do not rise to a level requiring recusal. Judges cannot be expected to remain blind to events around them, and the statements of the judge simply let the parties know his concerns. Cf. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1982). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to re-cuse.