Kirk v. Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc.

Background

Kirk filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The petition appeared to raise new grounds for removing Judge Carter from the case. The district court had previously denied Kirk’s motion for recusal in a January 12, 2023 order. After reviewing the new arguments, the district court ordered Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc. to respond.

The court construed the new arguments as a renewed motion for recusal. Recusal is the removal of a judge from a case when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when a statutory conflict exists. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 455, including provisions addressing reasonably questioned impartiality, personal bias, and financial interests that could be substantially affected by the case.

Arguments and analysis

Kirk’s renewed recusal arguments were based on two allegations: first, that the court had delayed deciding Citigroup’s motion to dismiss; and second, that Judge Carter owned stock in JPMorgan Chase Bank and had previously recused himself from unrelated litigation involving JPMorgan because of his spouse’s prior employment there.

The court rejected the delay argument. It stated that delays in entering judgment or issuing a decision are not grounds for recusal.

The court also rejected the JPMorgan argument. JPMorgan was not a party to this case, and Kirk did not allege that Judge Carter or his spouse had a financial interest in the subject matter, an interest in a party, or another interest that could be substantially affected by the case’s outcome. The court said Kirk had not connected JPMorgan to this case other than by asserting that JPMorgan and Citigroup had been co-defendants in unrelated litigation. Interests that are remote, contingent, indirect, or speculative do not require disqualification.

Reconsideration request

Kirk also repeated arguments that had been addressed in the earlier recusal ruling. To the extent he sought reconsideration of that ruling, the court applied Local Civil Rule 6.3. The court explained that reconsideration requires identifying controlling decisions or information the court overlooked, such as a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error that would cause manifest injustice. The court found that Kirk had not met that standard.

Disposition

The court denied Kirk’s renewed request for Judge Carter’s recusal. It also denied Kirk’s request to reconsider the prior recusal ruling.