Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 86 views

    Tennyson Walters V., 3rd Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The debtors appealed a bankruptcy court ruling that declared a debt they owed to Nahid Tehrani was non-dischargeable. They argued the bankruptcy judge should have disqualified herself due to bias. The District Court rejected the debtors' bias claims, finding their allegations did not demonstrate judicial bias requiring disqualification. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding no plain error, as the facts alleged would not cause an objective observer to reasonably question the judge's impartiality as required for disqualification. The court declined to consider a new bias claim not raised in the District Court regarding the judge's sister.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Tennyson Walters V., 3rd Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    86 views5 pages
    The debtors appealed a bankruptcy court ruling that declared a debt they owed to Nahid Tehrani was non-dischargeable. They argued the bankruptcy judge should have disqualified herself due to bias. The District Court rejected the debtors' bias claims, finding their allegations did not demonstrate judicial bias requiring disqualification. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding no plain error, as the facts alleged would not cause an objective observer to reasonably question the judge's impartiality as required for disqualification. The court declined to consider a new bias claim not raised in the District Court regarding the judge's sister.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-05-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-2317

    Original Title

    Tennyson Walters v., 3rd Cir. (2016)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The debtors appealed a bankruptcy court ruling that declared a debt they owed to Nahid Tehrani was non-dischargeable. They argued the bankruptcy judge should have disqualified herself due to bias. The District Court rejected the debtors' bias claims, finding their allegations did not demonstrate judicial bias requiring disqualification. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding no plain error, as the facts alleged would not cause an objective observer to reasonably question the judge's impartiality as required for disqualification. The court declined to consider a new bias claim not raised in the District Court regarding the judge's sister.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    86 views5 pages

    Tennyson Walters V., 3rd Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The debtors appealed a bankruptcy court ruling that declared a debt they owed to Nahid Tehrani was non-dischargeable. They argued the bankruptcy judge should have disqualified herself due to bias. The District Court rejected the debtors' bias claims, finding their allegations did not demonstrate judicial bias requiring disqualification. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding no plain error, as the facts alleged would not cause an objective observer to reasonably question the judge's impartiality as required for disqualification. The court declined to consider a new bias claim not raised in the District Court regarding the judge's sister.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ________________
    No. 15-2317
    ________________
    IN RE: TENNYSON WALTERS and
    KARLENE A. RAWLE-WALTERS,
    Debtors
    NAHID TEHRANI
    v.
    TENNYSON WALTERS;
    KARLENE A. RAWLE-WALTERS,
    Appellants
    ________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. Civil No. 2-13-cv-06544)
    District Judge: Honorable Kevin McNulty
    ________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    January 15, 2016
    Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
    (Filed: May 20, 2016)
    ________________
    OPINION*
    ________________
    *

    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
    constitute binding precedent.

    SCIRICA, Circuit Judge


    Tennyson Walters and Karlene A. Rawle-Walters filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy
    on April 21, 2010. In the bankruptcy proceeding, Nahid Tehrani obtained a final
    judgment declaring a debt the debtors owed Tehrani was non-dischargeable. Before the
    District Court, the debtors contended the bankruptcy judge erred by failing to disqualify
    herself from the proceeding. The debtors had not moved for the bankruptcy judge to
    disqualify herself in the Bankruptcy Court. The District Court found the bankruptcy
    judge did not err. We will affirm.1
    The debtors appealed to the District Court on several grounds, contending the
    bankruptcy judge was biased, should not have given collateral estoppel effect to state
    court findings of fraud, and should not have denied certain cross-motions. Regarding the
    bias claim, they contended the bankruptcy judge was biased because of how she handled
    their case and her familiarity with Tehranis attorney. In particular, the debtors stated
    Tehranis attorney was related to a now-deceased judge for whom the bankruptcy judge
    clerked. The debtors also stated the bankruptcy judge was President of the Bankruptcy
    Inn of Court and that organization was formed to honor [the now-deceased judge] and
    some other jurists. App. 22a (internal citation omitted). Furthermore, the debtors
    contended, [i]t would be reasonable to assume therefore that [the bankruptcy judge] and
    [Tehranis attorney] know each other very well because Tehranis attorney has
    practiced in bankruptcy court for over two decades. Id. (internal citation omitted). The
    1

    The Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(I). The
    District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. 1291.
    2

    debtors also claimed the bankruptcy judge was biased because she decided seventeen
    pleadings and motions in favor of Tehrani. Id. Finally, the debtors contended there was
    a pattern from the series of pleadings by plaintiff and the corresponding rulings by the
    court, designed so [a]ll of the ducks would then be in line for the bankruptcy court to
    enter a nondischargeable judgment. Id. at 23a (internal citation omitted).
    The District Court rejected these allegations of bias and affirmed the Bankruptcy
    Court on all issues the debtors raised. Tehrani v. Walters, No. 2:136544(KM), 2015 WL
    1815510 (D.N.J. Apr. 21, 2015). On the bias claim, the District Court held even assuming
    all the debtors allegations were true, it comes nowhere near a showing of judicial bias
    requiring disqualification. App. 22a. In particular, it held [i]t is unreasonable to infer
    bias based on [Tehranis attorneys] regular practice of bankruptcy law in this district.
    Id. It noted if an attorney could not litigate more than a certain number of cases in a
    particular court without creating an inference of bias, the judicial system might grind to a
    halt. Id. And the court found the debtors contentions of bias regarding the bankruptcy
    judges connections to the now-deceased judge to be innocuous and wholly
    unpersuasive. Id. It rejected the debtors claim the bankruptcy judge was biased because
    she decided in Tehranis favor. As the court stated, [a] losing streak, without more, is
    not suggestive of bias; it ordinarily reflects nothing more or less than the judges view of
    the merits. Id. Finally, the court held there was nothing erroneous, let alone improper,
    about the courts procedural actions (lifting the automatic stay to permit state court
    proceedings to go forward, then adopting the state courts findings of fraud by way of
    collateral estoppel). Id. at 23a.
    3

    On appeal, the debtors present one issue for review: whether the District Court
    erred in finding that the bankruptcy judge did not err by failing to disqualify herself from
    their bankruptcy proceeding.
    Where a party has not requested that the district judge recuse himself or herself
    during proceedings in the district court, we review a recusal argument made on appeal for
    plain error. Selkridge v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 360 F.3d 155, 166 (3d Cir.
    2004). This standard applies with respect to bankruptcy court proceedings as well. For
    reversible plain error to exist, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects
    substantial rights; and (4) which seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
    reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Moreno, 809 F.3d 766, 773 (3d Cir.
    2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    A judge must disqualify h[er]self in any proceeding in which h[er] impartiality
    might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. 455(a) (2012). Under 455(a), if a
    reasonable [perso]n, were [that person] to know all the circumstances, would harbor
    doubts about the judges impartiality . . . , then the judge must recuse. Selkridge, 360
    F.3d at 167 (internal quotation marks omitted).
    The debtors contend, as they did in the District Court, that a review of . . .
    relationships in the bankruptcy case demonstrates that there was impropriety or/and an
    appearance of impropriety. Appellants Opening Br. 14 (emphasis removed). But as the
    District Court correctly pointed out, [t]he facts . . . do not raise any reasonable inference
    of bias. App. 21a. This conclusion was not plain error. Even if the contentions the
    debtors made in the District Court were true, none of them would cause an objective
    4

    observer to question the bankruptcy judges impartiality in this case, as required by


    section 455(a). We refer the parties to the District Courts well-reasoned analysis of the
    debtors claims of judicial bias, quoted above, which addresses these contentions. App.
    21a23a. We see no error that is plain, affects substantial rights or which seriously affects
    the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
    In addition to renewing arguments they made in the District Court, the debtors
    contend for the first time before us that the bankruptcy judge sat on cases in which her
    sister, or that sisters firm, represented a litigant. There is no allegation that the sister
    played any role in this case. Because the debtors did not raise their contention about the
    sister before the District Court, we decline to consider it.
    For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

    You might also like