International Bachelor of LAW Program 2019 – 2020
Civil Procedure Case Law by 18024580 Page 1 of 10
CIVIL PROCEDURE
2019/2020 CASES
, International Bachelor of LAW Program 2019 – 2020
Civil Procedure Case Law by 18024580 Page 2 of 10
LILJEBERG V. HEALTH SERVICES ACQUISITION CORP.
paras 849-852 and 859-870
Facts
Parties: J. Liljeberg (business promoter), Health Services Acquisition Corporation –
Presided: Judge Collins.
• Health Services Acquisition Corp. brought an action against J. Liljeberg to seek a
declaration of ownership
• Judge Collins ruled for Liljeberg
• Subsequently, Liljeberg could sell the hospital business to Loyola University
• Respondent learned that Judge Collins was a member of the Board of Trustees of Loyola
University
• The benefit of the Loyola University based on litigation before Judge Collins
• Respondent moved to vacate the judgement on the ground of 28 U. S. C. § 455 (a)
Preliminary questions
Should a judge recuse himself if his impartiality is reasonably questioned?
“Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U. S. C. § 455(a),
as amended. The goal of §455 is to avoid even the appearance of impartiality.
Supreme Court’s finding on Judge Collins’s Impartiality
The Supreme Court approves the district courts findings, i.e. that the judge did not know
Loyola’s interest during the trial. This is based on the following facts:
a. Judge Collins (JC) attended a meeting where interests were discussed days before the lawsuit
was filed, but ‘forgot’ about interest.
b. JC missed meeting which discussed trial. Minutes of meeting mailed to JC.
c. Regained actual knowledge on March 24 but did not recuse himself.
d. Did not acknowledge he knew about Universities interest.
Can a judge’s forgetfulness of “involvement in litigation” avoid the appearance of partiality?
“The judge's forgetfulness, however, is not the sort of objectively ascertainable fact that can
avoid the appearance of partiality. Hall v. Small Business Administration, 695 F. 2d 175, 179
(5th Cir. 1983). Under section 455(a), therefore, recusal is required even when a judge lacks
actual knowledge of the facts indicating his interest or bias in the case if a reasonable person,
knowing all the circumstances, would expect that the judge would have actual knowledge.”
– Chief Judge Clark.
Judge Collins inexcusable failure to disqualify himself. Para. 868: “It is, therefore,
appropriate to vacate the judgment […]”.
Civil Procedure Case Law by 18024580 Page 1 of 10
CIVIL PROCEDURE
2019/2020 CASES
, International Bachelor of LAW Program 2019 – 2020
Civil Procedure Case Law by 18024580 Page 2 of 10
LILJEBERG V. HEALTH SERVICES ACQUISITION CORP.
paras 849-852 and 859-870
Facts
Parties: J. Liljeberg (business promoter), Health Services Acquisition Corporation –
Presided: Judge Collins.
• Health Services Acquisition Corp. brought an action against J. Liljeberg to seek a
declaration of ownership
• Judge Collins ruled for Liljeberg
• Subsequently, Liljeberg could sell the hospital business to Loyola University
• Respondent learned that Judge Collins was a member of the Board of Trustees of Loyola
University
• The benefit of the Loyola University based on litigation before Judge Collins
• Respondent moved to vacate the judgement on the ground of 28 U. S. C. § 455 (a)
Preliminary questions
Should a judge recuse himself if his impartiality is reasonably questioned?
“Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U. S. C. § 455(a),
as amended. The goal of §455 is to avoid even the appearance of impartiality.
Supreme Court’s finding on Judge Collins’s Impartiality
The Supreme Court approves the district courts findings, i.e. that the judge did not know
Loyola’s interest during the trial. This is based on the following facts:
a. Judge Collins (JC) attended a meeting where interests were discussed days before the lawsuit
was filed, but ‘forgot’ about interest.
b. JC missed meeting which discussed trial. Minutes of meeting mailed to JC.
c. Regained actual knowledge on March 24 but did not recuse himself.
d. Did not acknowledge he knew about Universities interest.
Can a judge’s forgetfulness of “involvement in litigation” avoid the appearance of partiality?
“The judge's forgetfulness, however, is not the sort of objectively ascertainable fact that can
avoid the appearance of partiality. Hall v. Small Business Administration, 695 F. 2d 175, 179
(5th Cir. 1983). Under section 455(a), therefore, recusal is required even when a judge lacks
actual knowledge of the facts indicating his interest or bias in the case if a reasonable person,
knowing all the circumstances, would expect that the judge would have actual knowledge.”
– Chief Judge Clark.
Judge Collins inexcusable failure to disqualify himself. Para. 868: “It is, therefore,
appropriate to vacate the judgment […]”.
