Cotterill v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Attorney Gregory M. Haynes represented Cheryl Cotterill in an underlying lawsuit alleging civil-rights violations by The Regents of the University of California, the City and County of San Francisco, and individual employees of those entities. After the underlying case was dismissed, the Regents and the City Defendants sought attorneys’ fees and costs.

The court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and ruled that Haynes had acted recklessly regarding key witnesses and had unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings, violating 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The court awarded $165,578.37 to the Regents and $196,967.24 to the City. The awards were imposed on Haynes, not Cotterill. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal and remanded only for a discretionary determination about Haynes’s ability to pay the sanctions. After further proceedings, the court kept the same award. Haynes appealed again, but the Ninth Circuit dismissed that appeal with prejudice for failure to prosecute after multiple delays.

In 2022, the Regents sought to renew the judgment. The Clerk entered writs of execution and issued notice renewing the judgment for another ten-year term. Haynes then moved to set aside or vacate the judgment and moved to disqualify the judge.

Motion to Vacate

The court denied the motion to vacate as untimely. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a motion generally must be filed within a reasonable time, and some grounds have a one-year deadline. The court emphasized that Haynes filed his motion nine years after the judgment and sanctions award and seven years after the order was affirmed on appeal. The grounds were known to him earlier, and the renewal of the judgment did not restart the time to file a Rule 60 motion.

The court also denied the motion on the merits. Haynes appeared to argue that the judgment should be vacated because the judge had not disclosed that his son worked in the City Attorney’s Office during the underlying litigation. The court concluded that this circumstance did not create a conflict, make the judgment void, or establish fraud on the court. It relied in part on a 2013 opinion letter from the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which found that the son’s employment, considering all the circumstances, did not require recusal or create a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality. The court also stated that it had not shared matters involving the City with its son and had not been biased by the employment.

Motion to Disqualify

The court denied the motion to disqualify as late and unsupported. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a judge must recuse when a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts would question the judge’s impartiality. Under 28 U.S.C. § 144, a party must file a timely and sufficient affidavit alleging personal bias or prejudice. The court found that Haynes had not provided a sufficient affidavit contradicting the Committee’s findings or showing bias for Haynes or Cotterill, or in favor of the defendants. The court also noted that the Committee’s recommendation that the judge disclose the relationship in future cases involving San Francisco came after the judgment in this matter was entered.

Disposition

Judge White denied the motion to vacate the judgment and denied the motion to disqualify.