United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc.
- Victor Marrero
- 1:19-cv-04355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., Judge Gorenstein denied defendants’ recusal application, finding no reasonable basis to question his impartiality.
The defendants who sought recusal and Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein; the court denied the application, so the requested disqualification was not granted.
What happened
In United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., defendants asked the magistrate judge to step aside from the case. Their application referred to the judge’s connection with Debevoise & Plimpton and to rulings made during the case.
The court noted that the application might have been filed late and that the connection to the firm was limited. The firm had not represented any party in the case, and the discovery matter involving it as a nonparty had ended.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ruled that no reasonable person could view his connections or case rulings as showing bias or affecting his impartiality. He denied the application to recuse, filed at Docket #640.
The detailed version
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-04355
- Victor Marrero
- Nov. 19, 2020
Background
The order addresses defendants’ application to recuse, or disqualify, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1). Those provisions require disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.
The application involved the judge’s alleged connection to Debevoise & Plimpton and individuals identified in a letter. The opinion states that Debevoise had never appeared as counsel for a party in the case. The discovery matter in which the firm had been involved as a nonparty had concluded by September. The court also addressed defendants’ reliance on rulings made, or not yet made, during the case.
Analysis
The court stated that the application might be untimely because defendants indicated that they had known the basis for it “earlier this year.” The court also characterized the connection to Debevoise as highly attenuated. It was not clear that the case would require the judge to make decisions about the merits or progress of defendants’ separate suit against the firm.
The court did not need to decide those issues because it concluded that no reasonable person could view the judge’s connection to the firm or the individuals mentioned in the letter as affecting his impartiality. Judge Gorenstein stated that he did not recall ever meeting Andrew Ceresney and did not recall speaking to or communicating with Ceresney or Mary Jo White during the prior fifteen years. He also stated that he had had no connection to or involvement with Debevoise for 33 years.
The court further held that adverse rulings, without more, do not reasonably establish judicial bias. It stated that an objective observer familiar with the case and the challenged rulings would conclude that none reflected bias. Judge Gorenstein also stated that he harbored no bias or prejudice toward defendants and that they had been, and would be, treated as having equal standing and worth with the other parties.
Disposition
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied the application to recuse at Docket #640. The opinion does not state any other disposition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.