Court Opinion

ID: 9890176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 17:01:39.02448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:50.467954
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 12 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: PACIFIC THOMAS                           No.    21-16923
CORPORATION,
                                                D.C. No. 3:19-cv-03385-MMC
             Debtor,
______________________________
                                                MEMORANDUM*
RANDALL C.M. WHITNEY,

                Appellant,

 v.

KYLE EVERETT, Chapter 11 Trustee,

                Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                   Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted October 12, 2023**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Randall Whitney appeals pro se from two orders entered by the bankruptcy

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
court and affirmed by the district court. Because the facts are known to the parties,

we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.

                                           I

      Whitney argues that the bankruptcy court was required to grant his motion

for disqualification. First, Whitney argues that the cumulative effect of several

adverse rulings demonstrated a “pervasive bias” against him. Rarely are judicial

decisions, on their own, sufficient to establish bias or partiality. Liteky v. United

States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Appeal, not disqualification, is the proper

avenue. Id. Whitney’s list of adverse decisions does not demonstrate a “deep-

seated . . . antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id.

      Second, the bankruptcy court was not required to grant Whitney’s motion to

disqualify for attending a legal conference. Federal judges are permitted to engage

in “law-related pursuits” and to “lecture . . . on both law-related and nonlegal

subjects.” Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, Canon 4. Whitney argues that a

judge’s presence at a legal conference with another party or that party’s counsel

creates an impermissible opportunity for ex parte communication. Whitney does

not suggest that any ex parte communication occurred in this case, however.

Under the circumstances, the bankruptcy court’s impartiality could not reasonably

be questioned. United States v. Carey, 929 F.3d 1092, 1104 (9th Cir. 2019).

      The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Whitney’s

                                           2
motion for disqualification.

                                           II

      Defendants must have standing to present arguments to a federal court.

Arizonans for Off. Eng. v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997). Standing must be

analyzed for each claim and remedy sought. Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 734

(2008). Whitney’s standing to defend against an injunction against himself is not

sufficient to permit standing to defend against a turnover award against Pacific

Thomas Trading Ventures (“PTV”). The only issue before the bankruptcy court

when Whitney filed his motion in limine was the amount of the turnover from PTV

to Pacific Thomas Corporation (“PTC”). Whitney’s interest in defending against

an injunction is not relevant to that determination. Whitney did not have standing

to move to exclude evidence regarding PTV’s liability. See Valley Forge Christian

Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464, 474 (1982)

(parties must assert their own interests, not the interests of others).

      AFFIRMED. All pending motions are DENIED.

                                            3