With Friends Like These ....

Bassett Unified School District v. Superior Court, No. B323528 (D2d5 Mar. 14, 2023).

Judge A is presiding over a employment retaliation case. The Plaintiff's lawyers are from a firm in which Judge B was once a partner. Judge B casually notes this fact to Judge A. Judge B then shows up in court a few times to greet the attorneys. He sits in on voir dire until Judge A notices him in the gallery and has the clerk pass a note asking him to leave. A some point, Judge A makes an evidentiary ruling that is viewed as favorable to the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff wins a $25 million verdict. When Judge B hears about it, he texts Judge A: $25 Million!! with a couple of fireworks emojis. Judge A asks Judge B not to communicate about the case anymore. Judge A, being diligent, discloses this ex parte communication to the parties, and explains her interactions with Judge B over the course of the trial. Defendant moves to DQ Judge A, arguing that the evidentiary ruling was tainted by bias. The judge assigned to hear the DQ under Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3 denies it. Defendant takes a writ.

The Court of Appeal finds no basis for recusal. Judge B seems pretty biased. But there’s nothing that merits imputing that bias to Judge A. Judge A took all the appropriate steps to avoid the appearance of bias, including by candidly disclosing all of the potentially problematic interactions.

Writ denied.