Febrianti v. NYC Health & Hospitals
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-06175
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Febrianti v. NYC Health & Hospitals, Judge Rochon overruled objections and upheld Magistrate Judge Aaron’s denial of recusal.
Erica Febrianti’s request to remove Magistrate Judge Aaron was rejected, so he remained assigned to handle the matters referred to him in the case. The ruling concerned the conduct of the case and did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Febrianti v. NYC Health & Hospitals, Erica Febrianti asked that Magistrate Judge Aaron be removed from the case after an off-the-record settlement conference. She alleged that he ridiculed her religion and made comments suggesting her case was worthless. Magistrate Judge Aaron denied the request, and Febrianti objected to that decision.
Judge Rochon reviewed the decision under a deferential standard for non-final pretrial matters, changing it only if it was clearly mistaken or contrary to law. The court concluded that Magistrate Judge Aaron used the correct legal standard and that Febrianti had not shown facts indicating that his impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The court also stated that critical comments about a case, even if made during settlement discussions, were not enough by themselves to establish bias.
Judge Rochon overruled Febrianti’s objections to Magistrate Judge Aaron’s January 21, 2025 order and opinion denying her motion for recusal. The ruling left Magistrate Judge Aaron assigned to handle the matters referred to him in the case.
The detailed version
- Febrianti v. NYC Health & Hospitals · No. 1:23-cv-06175
- Rochon
- Jan. 24, 2025
Background
On January 2, 2025, the court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Aaron for general pretrial matters, including scheduling, discovery, non-final pretrial motions, and settlement, as well as dispositive motions requiring a report and recommendation. The opinion states that party consent was not required for the referral.
At a January 10, 2025 conference, Febrianti and defense counsel Rodalton J. Poole appeared. After the conference, Magistrate Judge Aaron held an off-the-record settlement conference. On January 16, Febrianti asked that he be recused, or removed from the case. She alleged that he ridiculed her religion and encouraged defense counsel not to admit the case while repeatedly telling her that the case was worthless.
Magistrate Judge Aaron denied the recusal request on January 21, stating that he could handle the referred matters fairly and impartially. Febrianti then filed a letter that the district court treated as objections to that order.
Legal standard and analysis
The district court explained that a recusal motion is a non-dispositive matter, meaning it does not decide the parties’ underlying claims. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district court reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order for clear error or a ruling contrary to law. Clear error means that, after reviewing the evidence, the court is firmly convinced that a mistake occurred. A ruling is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, a relevant statute, case, or procedural rule.
The court also applied the rule that a judge must step aside when a reasonable person who knows all the facts could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. It found that Magistrate Judge Aaron identified the correct legal standard and applied it without clear error. The court stated that even if he had made critical comments about Febrianti’s case while facilitating settlement discussions, such comments would not be enough to support a claim of bias or partiality. The court concluded that Febrianti had not presented sufficient facts or circumstances to make his impartiality reasonably questionable.
Ruling
The court overruled Febrianti’s objections to Magistrate Judge Aaron’s January 21, 2025 opinion and order denying her motion for recusal. The opinion does not decide the merits of Febrianti’s underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.