Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC Document 12 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 WESTERN DIVISION
11
12 In the Disciplinary Matter of ) Case No. MC-09-00129 ABC
RICHARD ISAAC FINE )
13 )
) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
14 California State Bar No.: 55259 ) RECUSE THE HONORABLE OTIS T.
) WRIGHT, II
15 )
)
16 )
)
17 )
)
18 _________________________________ )
19
On July 27, 2009, the Honorable Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, ordered
20
disbarment of Richard Isaac Fine from practice before this Court, following his
21
disbarment by the State Bar of California on March 13, 2009.1 On or about August 18,
22
2009, Fine moved to recuse Judge Collins on the grounds that her husband is Dental
23
Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. According to Fine,
24
Dr. Collins’ employment by the County of Los Angeles requires that Judge Collins be
25
26
1
27 In the Disciplinary Matter of Richard Isaac Fine, No. MC-09-129 ABC (C.D. Cal.
July 27, 2009); see also In the Matter of Richard Isaac Fine, 04-O-14366 (Review Dept.
28
2008).
H:\CASNYDER\Other Judges\MC09-129ABC-Order01.wpd
 Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC Document 12 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 2 of 3

1 recused.

2 Thereafter this matter was randomly reassigned to the Honorable Otis T. Wright,

3 II, to decide the recusal motion. On August 27, 2009, Judge Wright issued an order

4 denying the motion to recuse Judge Collins. On September 3, 2009, Fine moved to

5 recuse Judge Wright for failure to disclose that he was formerly a Los Angeles Superior

6 Court Judge.

7 Thereafter the motion to recuse Judge Wright was randomly assigned to this

8 Court.2

9 The claimed basis for the recusal of Judge Wright is that Counts 16, 17, 18, 20,

10 21 and 22 of his disbarment case relate to Fine’s challenge to payments made by Los

11 Angeles County to Los Angeles County Superior Court judges, and that Judge Wright

12 has been immunized retroactively from criminal prosecution, civil liability and

13 disciplinary action by Calif. Gov. Code §§ 68220 et seq., enacted on February 20, 2009,

14 in response to Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App. 4th 630 (2008), which

15 held such payments by the County to be violative of Article VI, § 19 of the California

16 Constitution.

17 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), relied upon by Fine, provides as follows:

18 Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States

19 shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his

20 impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

21 In this case, it is clear that Fine did not serve as counsel of record in the Sturgeon case.

22 Nor is there any showing that he was otherwise involved in that case. The mere fact

23 that Fine may have argued that judges received impermissible payments in his state

24 disbarment proceeding does not create an appearance of impartiality. Judge Wright left

25 the Superior Court to join this Court on April 16, 2007, more than year prior to the

26
27 2
This Court has previously presided over a case in which Fine was counsel for
28 plaintiff, Paeco Corp. v. World Savings Bank FSB, Case No. 07-02831-CAS(AGR).
H:\CASNYDER\Other Judges\MC09-129ABC-Order01.wpd 2
 Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC Document 12 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 3 of 3

1 decision in Sturgeon. Further, nothing contained in the opinion and order disbarring

2 Fine, filed on September 19, 2008, supports Fine’s assertion that Counts 16, 17, 18, 20,

3 21 and 22 relate to any challenge of payments made by Los Angeles County to its

4 Superior Court Judges. Because Fine had no involvement in Sturgeon, it is likewise

5 irrelevant that Judge Wright may have been immunized by the enactment of

6 Government Code § 68222. For these reasons the motion to recuse Judge Wright is

7 DENIED.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10 Dated: September 15, 2009 __________________________________
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

H:\CASNYDER\Other Judges\MC09-129ABC-Order01.wpd 3