Opinion ID: 78403
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenges to Adverse Rulings

Text: The bankruptcy court was fully justified in finding that the Recusal Motion was filed and litigated as an offensive litigation strategy. (Sanctions Order at 68.) Challenges to adverse rulings are generally grounds for appeal, not recusal. In re Walker, 532 F.3d at 1311; see also Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir.2000) ([E]xcept where pervasive bias is shown, a judge's rulings in the same or a related case are not a sufficient basis for recusal.). Nevertheless, a considerable portion of the Recusal Motion disputed rulings unfavorable to the debtors. [14] ( See, e.g., Recusal Mot. at 2) (referring to a series of dubious judicial actions taken in conjunction with Mr. Shuker.). The Recusal Motion criticizes the court for appointing an interim trustee; [15] not sufficiently addressing the automatic stay; [16] granting the discovery order; [17] making incorrect FOFCOL in the Mataeka AP judgment; [18] and miscalculating the damages award in the Mataeka AP judgment. [19] Spradley even conceded in testimony that he was really frustrated at that point, the fact that I felt relief was coming down in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the case and in a fashion that didn't appear to be just. (Recusal Tr. Vol. III at 146.) Yet, a recusal motion is an improper vehicle to dispute disagreeable adverse rulings. It is a clear abuse of such a pleading. Additionally, Ginsberg requested the revocation of all orders previously entered in the Mataeka AP and related proceedings. In other words, Ginsberg sought the revocation of more than 250 orders all previously entered in the Evergreen case. Yet, Ginsberg presented no evidence that this was an extraordinary circumstance which required vacatur. Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (noting that vacatur should only be applied in extraordinary circumstances (citation omitted)). In our view, requesting this kind of relief, while discussing numerous rulings adverse to the debtors, strongly suggests that the Motion was presented to hamper enforcement of the bankruptcy court's orders.