Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1976 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureJudicial DisqualificationRecusalClass ActionsPretrial Procedure28 U.S.C. § 14428 U.S.C. § 455recusal

Facts

Plaintiff brought a Title VII action alleging that defendant law firm discriminated against lawyers on the basis of sex, and the court had certified the action as a class action with leave for defendant to file opposition and seek reconsideration. Defendant did not file opposition to class certification despite repeated invitations, but instead sought the judge's disqualification, claiming that the class-certification ruling, the handling of other pretrial rulings, and the judge's background showed bias in favor of plaintiff. Defendant also objected to the court's refusal to hold a separate hearing on whether there was a continuing violation and to allow discovery into plaintiff's motive for bringing the suit. The judge noted that the challenged rulings were made in managing contentious pretrial proceedings and that defendant alleged no personal relationship, association, or interest linking the judge to the litigation.

Issue

Whether the affidavits filed by defendant were legally sufficient under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 to require the district judge's disqualification for personal and extrajudicial bias against defendant and in favor of plaintiff.

Rule

On a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 144, the judge must accept the affidavit's factual allegations as true, but disqualification is required only if those facts are legally sufficient to show a bent of mind that may impede impartial judgment. The required bias must be personal, stem from an extrajudicial source, and result in an opinion on the merits not warranted by the facts or issues in the case. Judicial rulings, case-management decisions, and a judge's background, race, sex, or prior civil-rights work, without more, do not establish the personal prejudice necessary for recusal.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a wage-and-hour class action in Chicago, North Harbor Logistics moves to recuse the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 144. Its affidavit states that the judge denied the company's motion to stay discovery, set an aggressive pretrial schedule, and remarked at a status conference that the case had already generated too many needless filings.

Assuming the affidavit's factual allegations are accepted as true, what is the best ruling on the recusal motion?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, a judge considering a § 144 motion must accept the affidavit's factual allegations as true, but disqualification is required only if those facts are legally sufficient to show personal prejudice from an extrajudicial source that may impede impartial judgment. Judicial rulings, scheduling decisions, and efforts to control contentious pretrial proceedings are not enough.