Ex parte Bank of America, N.A., et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Charles E. Wilson v. JPMorgan Chase & Company et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:12/04/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080982 Ex p a r t e Bank o f A m e r i c a , N.A., et a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : C h a r l e s E. W i l s o n v. JPMorgan Chase & Company (Jefferson C i r c u i t SHAW, Court, etal.) CV-08-901907) Justice. Bank Services, Securities; of America, LLC; Bear N.A.; JPMorgan Stearns Banc Chase Funding, & of America Investment Company; J.P. Morgan I n c . ; RBC Bank (USA); 1080982 Gardner-Michael and Peck, Shaffer collectively putative Capital, as class The Bank Williams, & Inc.; LLP (hereinafter "the action this Court for a writ the Honorable Albert presiding The over a resident of Jefferson by various officials, and other handling County of debt ("the certification of ratepayers the of a Mellon; referred pending trial of in the court, mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e L. Johnson, We to deny recuse the County. On financial parties to system"). class sewer judge, himself from Wilson, 2 0 0 8 , he institutions, sewer The consisting system. petition filed a The the system government issuance in complaint of a l l and Jefferson sought users complaint and further alleged: "The g e n e s i s of t h i s c i v i l a c t i o n can ... be t r a c e d to the s e r i e s of events over the l a s t e l e v e n to fifteen years where the Jefferson County Commissioners, various investment banks, insurers and a d v i s o r s h a v e c o n t i n u o u s l y f a i l e d to act i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c i t i z e n s of J e f f e r s o n County. Through a long s e r i e s of i l l - c o n c e i v e d f i n a n c i a l transactions, the sewer ratepayers of Jefferson 2 is C i r c u i t Court a l l e g i n g concerning the a petition. J u n e 17, Jefferson to in trial p l a i n t i f f b e l o w , C h a r l e s E. related sewer York a l l defendants c l a s s - a c t i o n c o m p l a i n t i n the wrongdoing New petitioners"), this action. representative of 1080982 County have been s a d d l e d w i t h a debt of roughly $11,491 per r e s i d e n t i a l sewer customer, w h i c h i s the h i g h e s t i n the n a t i o n . A l s o , the sewer ratepayers h a v e s e e n e x p o n e n t i a l g r o w t h , an i n c r e a s e o f 329%, in their sewer r a t e s i n the last eleven years-¬ C h a r l e s W i l s o n , on b e h a l f o f h i m s e l f a n d a l l o t h e r sewer ratepayers, citizens and residents of Jefferson County, b r i n g s this suit i n order to c h a l l e n g e the m i s a p p r o p r i a t i o n and/or m i s a p p l i c a t i o n of p u b l i c funds based upon h i s and his fellow citizens and residents respective equitable ownership i n such funds, and their liability to r e p l e n i s h t h e p u b l i c t r e a s u r y f o r any d e f i c i e n c y . F u r t h e r , as t h e P l a i n t i f f a n d t h e m e m b e r s o f t h i s purported c l a s s a l s o have a p e c u n i a r y interest, P l a i n t i f f s b r i n g s u i t t o r e c o v e r m o n e t a r y damages for the losses they have sustained due to Defendants' wrongful conduct and dereliction of d u t i e s , w h i c h has d i r e c t l y c a u s e d o r c o n t r i b u t e d t o the wrongful increases in their sewer rates. F i n a l l y , and i m p o r t a n t l y , P l a i n t i f f s w i s h t o r e c t i f y t h e d a u n t i n g and p r e c a r i o u s f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n t h a t has b e e n t h r u s t upon them by t h e D e f e n d a n t s i n t h i s c a s e a n d t o e n s u r e t h a t s e w e r f u n d s do n o t continue t o be d i v e r t e d f r o m t h e i r p u r p o s e o f m a i n t a i n i n g , supporting and/or expanding the a v a i l a b l e sewer service." The complaint seeks, among o t h e r t h i n g s , the f o l l o w i n g r e l i e f : "A. That t h i s Honorable Court d e t e r m i n e that t h i s a c t i o n may be m a i n t a i n e d as a c l a s s a c t i o n under Rule 23 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure; "B. members damages herein between T h a t j u d g m e n t be e n t e r e d f o r P l a i n t i f f s and of the C l a s s a g a i n s t Defendants f o r monetary s u s t a i n e d b y P l a i n t i f f s as a r e s u l t o f t h e described wrongful conduct and actions 1993 and 2008; 3 1080982 "C. T h a t j u d g m e n t b e e n t e r e d f o r P l a i n t i f f s a n d members o f t h e C l a s s against Defendants f o r the disgorgement of fees, kickbacks and premiums r e c e i v e d b y D e f e n d a n t s as a r e s u l t o f t h e h e r e i n d e s c r i b e d w r o n g f u l c o n d u c t and a c t i o n s b e t w e e n 1993 and 2008; "D. That the Court award injunctive relief a g a i n s t Defendants and p r e v e n t f u t u r e e x c e s s i v e fees from b e i n g p a i d and t h a t t h i s Court s e t - a s i d e t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s t h a t a r e made t h e b a s i s o f t h i s c a s e a s a l l were e n t e r e d into i n contravention of Alabama law; "E. the form premiums herein between That t h e Court award i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i n o f t h e d i s g o r g e m e n t o f f e e s , k i c k b a c k s and r e c e i v e d by D e f e n d a n t s as a r e s u l t o f t h e described wrongful conduct and actions 1993 and 2008; " F . T h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f s a n d t h e C l a s s be a w a r d e d i n t e r e s t a t the h i g h e s t l e g a l r a t e a v a i l a b l e under law r e l a t e d t o e x c e s s i v e f e e s and k i c k b a c k s ; "G. T h a t a t t o r n e y a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s ; and for Plaintiffs be awarded "H. T h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f s a n d members o f t h e C l a s s have such o t h e r , f u r t h e r o r d i f f e r e n t r e l i e f as t h e c a s e may r e q u i r e a n d t h e C o u r t may deem j u s t a n d proper under the circumstances." All recused the c i r c u i t judges i n the Tenth themselves i n the case. Judicial Circuit The H o n o r a b l e W i l l i a m G o r d o n , a r e t i r e d c i r c u i t judge i n the F i f t e e n t h J u d i c i a l C i r c u i t , appointed himself. to hear the case, but he subsequently was recused The H o n o r a b l e A l b e r t L. J o h n s o n o f t h e T w e n t y - S i x t h 4 1080982 Judicial status adult the Circuit was thus appointed to hear c o n f e r e n c e , Judge Johnson d a u g h t e r was a r e s i d e n t issue stated whether disclosed of Jefferson h i s recusal was the case. At a the fact that h i s County required. and r a i s e d Judge Johnson at the conference: " I h a v e a d a u g h t e r who l i v e s i n J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , b u t s h e ' s n o t on t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y S e w e r S y s t e m . N o w , t o b e d i s q u a l i f i e d , i f I'm r e a d i n g t h e [ C a n o n s ] o f J u d i c i a l E t h i c s c o r r e c t l y , t h e r e w o u l d have t o be a s u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t , and t h i s i s s o m e t h i n g I want e v e r y b o d y t o g i v e me a l i t t l e f e e d b a c k on. B e i n g that my daughter i s not a ratepayer f o r the J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y Sewer S y s t e m , and I can u n d e r s t a n d that perhaps based on the complaint i f that a l l e g a t i o n i s p r o v e n t o be t r u e , t h a t t h e r e ' s an 11,000 p l u s d o l l a r , y o u m i g h t s a y , d e b t , t h a t e a c h ratepayer has, I would determine that as s u b s t a n t i a l . B u t as o f t h i s d a t e , the Jefferson C o u n t y T a x p a y e r s have n o t been a s s e s s e d a n y t h i n g t h a t I c a n f i n d . I d o n ' t know i f t h e y s h a l l be a s s e s s e d a n y t h i n g . I d o n ' t know what t h e f u t u r e h o l d s i n t h o s e r e g a r d s . So t h e n , d o e s my d a u g h t e r h a v e a s u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t ? N o w , i f s h e d o e s , I'm d i s q u a l i f i e d . I f s h e d o e s n ' t , I'm n o t . " Judge Johnson customer further indicated o f t h e "Bessemer Water the motion that Judge Johnson h i s daughter was defendants f i l e d recuse himself. a motion Specifically, asserted: "2. A f t e r t h e r e c e s s o f t h a t i n i t i a l c o n f e r e n c e , i n q u i r i e s b y c o u n s e l f o r one 5 a System." On F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , s e v e r a l requesting that status of the 1080982 defendants i n d i c a t e d t h a t customers o f t h e Bessemer Water System were, i n f a c t , connected to the J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y Sewer System and were c h a r g e d r a t e s f o r t h a t sewer s e r v i c e by J e f f e r s o n County b u t were i n v o i c e d i n t h e name o f t h e B e s s e m e r W a t e r S y s t e m . Counsel was u n c e r t a i n whether [Judge Johnson's] daughter and her spouse a r e unknowing sewer customers of J e f f e r s o n County or whether instead t h e i r h o m e s i t e m i g h t be s e r v e d b y a n o t h e r sewer system o r even a s e p t i c system. C o u n s e l d i d n o t initially know t h e name of [Judge Johnson's] daughter and h e r spouse but r e a l i z e d that the Court's Statement o f Economic Interests would contain that public disclosure. "3. Having been alerted by this Court's proactive disclosures to the p o t e n t i a l problem, the Movants were r e a d i l y able to e s t a b l i s h through routine public sources that [Judge Johnson's] daughter and h e r spouse a r e u s e r s and r a t e p a y e r s o f the J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y Sewer System." The daughter motion further alleged that was a member o f t h e p u t a t i v e the trial judge's class: " 6 . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e d a u g h t e r o f J u d g e A l b e r t L. J o h n s o n t o whom t h i s c a s e h a s b e e n a s s i g n e d , a n d h e r s p o u s e a r e members o f t h e R a t e p a y e r C l a s s . Should the Ratepayer Class be certified and damages r e c o v e r e d , [Judge J o h n s o n ' s ] daughter and h e r spouse would be t h e r e c i p i e n t s o f a damages r e c o v e r y . Should the requested i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f precluding i n c r e a s e s i n r a t e c h a r g e s be g r a n t e d , r e g a r d l e s s o f whether i t i s o b t a i n e d by a c l a s s or i n d i v i d u a l Plaintiffs, [Judge Johnson's] daughter and h e r s p o u s e w i l l be t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f a n y r e s u l t i n g limitation on f u t u r e increases i n monthly sewer charges. "7. [Judge J o h n s o n ' s ] d a u g h t e r a n d h e r s p o u s e cannot e l i m i n a t e t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n t h e outcome o f 6 1080982 these proceedings by o p t i n g out o f a c l a s s should one b e c e r t i f i e d . A l l i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f s o u g h t b y P l a i n t i f f s would inure to t h e i r b e n e f i t r e g a r d l e s s o f a n y o p t o u t on t h e i r p a r t . " The motion himself Canons from thus sought t h e case of J u d i c i a l on an o r d e r denying ordered t h e case stayed petitioners The then a writ 198 ( A l a . 1996). Johnson recuse o f Canon 3.C., Alabama 6, 2 0 0 9 , Judge Johnson On A p r i l the defendants' pending motion to recuse but review s o u g h t mandamus o f mandamus. o f h i s d e c i s i o n . The review. Ex p a r t e "The w r i t 6 3 6 , 638 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . on the party Personnel seeking Further, recusal.'" 686 S o . 2 d 1 9 6 , i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y (Ala. that the Ex p a r t e R o l l i n s , 495 S o . " ' [ t ] h e burden of proof i s Ex parte B d . , 831 S o . 2 d 1, 9 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) 638 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 , 872 i n a petition o n l y when i t i s c l e a r court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . " 2d Crawford, o f mandamus remedy w h i c h s h o u l d be g r a n t e d Cotton, Judge i s s u e o f r e c u s a l may p r o p e r l y b e r a i s e d for trial have the basis Ethics. entered to City of Dothan ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e 1994)). "The s t a n d a r d f o r r e c u s a l i s a n o b j e c t i v e o n e : whether a reasonable person knowing e v e r y t h i n g t h a t t h e j u d g e knows w o u l d h a v e a ' r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s f o r q u e s t i o n i n g the judge's impartiality.' [Ex p a r t e C o t t o n , 638 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 , 872 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ] . The f o c u s of our i n q u i r y , therefore, i s not whether a p a r t i c u l a r judge i s or i s not b i a s e d toward the 7 1080982 petitioner; the focus is instead on whether reasonable person would perceive p o t e n t i a l bias a l a c k o f i m p a r t i a l i t y on t h e p a r t o f t h e j u d g e question." Ex parte The Bryant, 682 So. 2d 39, p e t i t i o n e r s maintain himself based pertinent "C. on Canon 41 (Ala. a or in 1996). t h a t Judge Johnson should 3.C(1)(d). That Canon recuse provides, in part: Disqualification: "(1) A j u d g e s h o u l d disqualify himself in a proceeding i n which h i s d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s required by law or h i s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d to i n s t a n c e s where: fi " ( d ) He o r h i s s p o u s e , o r a p e r s o n w i t h i n the f o u r t h degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p to e i t h e r of them, or the spouse of s u c h a p e r s o n : "(i) Is named a party to proceeding, o r an o f f i c e r , director, t r u s t e e of a p a r t y ; the or " ( i i ) I s known b y t h e j u d g e t o h a v e an interest that could be substantially a f f e c t e d by t h e outcome o f t h e proceeding The sewer p e t i t i o n e r s note that system ratepayers, owes amounts the a debt that, to $11,491 8 complaint when f o r each alleges that prorated among residential the its customer 1080982 and that the complaint "disgorgement" of seeks funds received defendants' alleged misconduct. that the action "lump-sum monetary daughter may damages, which "interest" be County thus the state had The would be a petitioners and that entitled to receive argue up or a Johnson's $11,491 in represents clearly an case. to such that a what Johnson's a damages award the daughter had in this moved ratepayer f o r only legal entitled If this Judge basis to a "lump by sum as said, It is a class reimbursement" successful, That The Jefferson months. other r e s i d e n t i a l were relief. 10 daughter case. to daughter, a s a r a t e p a y e r , t h e d a u g h t e r w o u l d be monetary action the that, of to the contend claim" 1993. sort thus Judge and of reimbursement" since some result sum excessive fees paid 1 damages "lump petitioners been u n c l e a r on allegedly as i t i s u n c l e a r whether entitled and member, be in this petitioners a damages thus However, would seeks monetary customers i t seems likely the of to clear receive parties have A t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o r e c u s e , c o u n s e l f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n d i c a t e d t h a t "the p l a i n t i f f s have never c l a i m e d and a r e n o t c l a i m i n g i n t h i s c a s e t h a t each p l a i n t i f f o r r a t e ¬ p a y e r r e c e i v e a check f o r $11,500. A g a i n , Judge, t h a t ' s debt l o a d , b a s e d on t h e d e b t t h a t ' s a c c u m u l a t e d . " 1 9 1080982 offered no possible In means by this any event, the c a s e , even petitioners per calculate the amount of i f she were that r a t e p a y e r was not prohibiting a substantial petitioners monetary support of t h i s , argue, Judge such Johnson's b e n e f i t from the i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f state Plaintiffs In to award. daughter would s t i l l in which to opt out of the c l a s s . "[e]ven i f the $11,491 in injunction rate issue, the increases benefit" will t o Judge the p e t i t i o n e r s sought i n sewer sought certainly Johnson's debt by provide daughter. argue: "According to the website f o r the J e f f e r s o n County O f f i c e o f Sewer S e r v i c e , t h e c u r r e n t sewer r a t e i s $ 9 . 8 9 p e r 1,000 g a l l o n s o f w a t e r u s e d ; t h u s t h e r a t e b e f o r e t h e 3 2 9 % i n c r e a s e w o u l d h a v e b e e n $3 p e r 1,000 gallons of water used. Assuming that the average household in Jefferson County has 2.4 p e r s o n s , a n d t h a t t h e a v e r a g e p e r s o n u s e s 80 g a l l o n s of w a t e r p e r day, t h e a v e r a g e h o u s e h o l d uses a r o u n d 5,800 g a l l o n s o f w a t e r p e r m o n t h . T h i s t r a n s l a t e s t o a difference of almost $40 per month--from a p p r o x i m a t e l y $17 p e r m o n t h a t t h e p r e - i n c r e a s e r a t e e l e v e n y e a r s ago a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e a p p r o x i m a t e l y $57 p e r m o n t h r a t e i n 2008. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , this t r a n s l a t e s i n t o an a v e r a g e i n c r e a s e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 11% per year over the past eleven years. I f the requested i n j u n c t i o n prevented f u t u r e i n c r e a s e s of 1 1 % p e r y e a r , o v e r t h e c o u r s e o f one year the a v e r a g e f a m i l y w o u l d s a v e a r o u n d $ 6 / m o n t h , o r $72 for t h e y e a r . The s a v i n g s f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r w o u l d be a r o u n d $ 1 2 / m o n t h , w h i c h t r a n s l a t e s t o $216 f o r t h e two y e a r s c o m b i n e d . I n t h e t h i r d y e a r , t h e 10 The 1080982 s a v i n g s w o u l d be a r o u n d $20/month, o v e r $450 o v e r j u s t t h r e e y e a r s . " (Citations t o I n t e r n e t Web Several advisory I n q u i r y Commission Advisory Opinion sites opinions was stated that to omitted.) i s s u e d by t h e Alabama ("JIC") d i s c u s s analogous Judicial situations. No. 9 1 - 4 3 4 , J I C was a s k e d w h e t h e r , i n a a c t i o n by customers of a u t i l i t y , member translating disqualified the judge from should a j u d g e who w o u l d b e a presiding over the case. 2 In class class JIC be d i s q u a l i f i e d i f "the outcome of the civil proceeding could s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t [ h i s ] i n t e r e s t as a c u s t o m e r o f the u t i l i t y . "'Although being a r a t e p a y e r does n o t i n v o l v e 'ownership of a l e g a l or e q u i t a b l e i n t e r e s t ' i n t h e p a r t y t o whom t h e j u d g e made s u c h p a y m e n t s , t h e c o m m i t t e e c o n c l u d e d t h a t a t some p o i n t a r e l a t i o n s h i p to a party as a u t i l i t y customer ... should disqualify a j u d g e . The t e s t i s that a judge should disqualify himself i f the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect h i s interest as a customer of the u t i l i t y ' " I n r e V i r g i n i a [ E l e c t r i c Power Co., 539 F . 2 d [357,] 368 [ ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 7 6 ) ] , q u o t i n g E. T h o d e , R e p o r t e r ' s N o t e s t o C o d e o f J u d i c i a l C o n d u c t a t 66-67 (1973). In In r e New Mexico [Natural Gas Antitrust L i t i g a t i o n ] , 620 F . 2 d [ 7 9 4 , ] 796 [ ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) ] , T h i s C o u r t w i l l c o n s i d e r an a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n o f J I C , b u t those opinions are not binding on t h i s Court. City of B e s s e m e r v . M c C l a i n , 957 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 1 , 1 0 8 8 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . 2 11 1080982 t h e j u d g e ' s g a s b i l l w o u l d be l o w e r e d b y $31 p e r year i f the p l a i n t i f f s were s u c c e s s f u l . I n I n r e Virginia, 539 F . 2 d a t 3 6 8 , t h e p o t e n t i a l e x i s t e d t h a t t h e j u d g e m i g h t s a v e up t o $100 o v e r t h e n e x t 40 y e a r s . "In determining w h e t h e r [a j u d g e h a s ] a n i n t e r e s t that could be 'substantially affected' by the outcome o f t h e c i v i l a c t i o n , [he] s h o u l d consider any b e n e f i t [he] w i l l r e c e i v e i f t h e p l a i n t i f f s a r e successful, whether that b e n e f i t i s such that a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n may q u e s t i o n [his] impartiality, and t h e r e m o t e n e s s o f t h e i n t e r e s t and i t s e x t e n t o r degree. L. A b r a m s o n , J u d i c i a l D i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n U n d e r C a n o n 3C o f t h e C o d e o f J u d i c i a l C o n d u c t a t 64-65 ( A m e r i c a n J u d i c a t u r e S o c i e t y , 1 9 8 6 ) . " 3 See a l s o J I C A d v i s o r y O p i n i o n No. 9 8 - 6 9 7 was n o t r e q u i r e d to recuse himself in being the judge's refunded g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y and t h a t hear the action proceeding property may could owner"). in i n a case that a unless substantially other residents disqualification O p i n i o n No. we n o t e t h a t i s n o t an provisions 95-585. fee See a l s o in the affect h a v e an i n t e r e s t i n a p r o c e e d i n g with small could result assessed by a "the judge i s not d i s q u a l i f i e d to question Further, ( s t a t i n g that a judge his outcome interest the fact that as a r e s i d e n t 3C." JIC Advisory the as a a judge " i n common i n t e r e s t contemplated Canon of JIC O p i n i o n No. by t h e Advisory 92-445 No i n f o r m a t i o n was p r o v i d e d t o J I C c o n c e r n i n g t h e s i z e o f a n y b e n e f i t t h e j u d g e t o whom A d v i s o r y O p i n i o n No. 9 1 - 4 3 4 was d i r e c t e d c o u l d r e c e i v e . 3 12 1080982 (stating that, because an i n t e r e s t a judge with the p u b l i c at large i s not i t s e l f that a j u d g e may b e s u b j e c t a ordinances in a authorizing d i s q u a l i f y i n g , the fact fee case such was not w r i t o f mandamus i n this case; transcripts, pleadings, filed. Although i t appears daughter lives i n Jefferson Bessemer Sewer System are not evidence. 155, not 159 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) Fountain 845 evidence are passage of to the p e t i t i o n f o r and County copies of various authorities that have Judge i s alleged t o be part found i n the pleadings Fin., I n c . v. Hines, been Johnson's and i s a customer v . A k z o N o b e l Chems., I n c . , (Tex. App. 1999). and for of the of the before us 788 S o . 2 d ("'[m]otions and arguments o f c o u n s e l a r e evidence.' Williams 836, basis the instead, undisputed (which sewer s y s t e m ) , t h e a s s e r t i o n s f e e and fees). hearing 4 a challenging No e v i d e n t i a r y e x h i b i t s a r e a t t a c h e d the i n common t o an e l e c t r i c - m e t e r - u s e r license-plate-renewal disqualification holds '[S]tatements therefore not 999 S.W.2d i n motions entitled to are not evidentiary Although the p e t i t i o n e r s indicated i n the t r i a l court that they intended t o f i l e some e x h i b i t s u n d e r s e a l , t h o s e e x h i b i t s have n o t been i n c l u d e d w i t h t h e i r p e t i t i o n t o t h i s Court. 4 13 1080982 weight.' 1050, S i n g h v . I m m i g r a t i o n & N a t u r a l i z a t i o n S e r v . , 213 F . 3 d 1054 n.8 As amount noted above, o f damages Judge Johnson residence no believed to recuse year establishes the may moved to Jefferson ratepayer in petitioners' would not the date this County, s u p p o r t e d by e v i d e n c e Bd., 831 injunctive Counsel on t h e fall within Because t h i s Johnson's the seeks Court daughter i f she basis relief was is a f o r the i n this case b y $450 o v e r a t h r e e - y e a r p e r i o d i s submitted to the t r i a l and c i r c u m s t a n c e s The action date. determine Finally, for recusal S o . 2 d a t 2. case. i n J u n e 2008 a n d Judge cannot action. b e n e f i t the daughter the facts' we conclusion that "The n e c e s s i t y of on w h i c h class not even d a m a g e s o n l y f o r a c t i o n s up t o t h a t p o i n t . not provided exact i n this at the hearing t h e c l a s s p e r i o d - - t h e a c t i o n was f i l e d is the moved t o h e r c u r r e n t the exact concern the daughter Court recover that h i s daughter expressed that to this could i n 2008--the evidence the p l a i n t i f f s motion i t i s unclear the daughter sometime filed--but for (9th C i r . 2000)."). test i s e v a l u a t e d by t h e i n each 14 case. i s whether The a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ' c i t a t i o n s t o t w o I n t e r n e t Web s i t e s . 5 court. figure 'totality Dothan '"facts 5 Pers. a r e shown consists of 1080982 w h i c h make i t r e a s o n a b l e or counsel opposed judge."'" (quoting quoting Ex In re 1982) there i s not bias." Ford v. of Ford, 465 and 1987) So. will So. 2d 2d 350, 355-56 Blalock, 420 So. not whose idea.'" 990 Fulton a ratepayer basis quantifying to v. a (Ala. the 2006) (Ala. 1984), 2d 60, required 61 where accusation (Ala. Civ. greatly action, receive as (2) the a of App. depends upon So. Longshore, 156 Ala. ultimate been has the submitted (1) that Judge sewer system d u r i n g there amount class of e x i s t s any damages member, or she (3) bias or impartial 516 that 15 of Balogun, Assuming of the possibility sworn to a d m i n i s t e r establishing: this entitled 791 of So. i s not 789, suppose evidence c o v e r e d by for 791 t o s u p p o r t an 2d Ex p a r t e (1908)). petition d a u g h t e r was So. authority c l a s s a c t i o n , no this 789, "Recusal i s already (quoting 989, 412 impartiality party, added). law p r e s u m p t i o n and this 962 the s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n a j u d g e who justice 46 George, (emphasis added)). "'[T]he (Ala. question Sheffield, (emphasis favor to i n t u r n A c r o m a g - V i k i n g v. (Ala. 1982) parte f o r members o f t h e p u b l i c o r a 2d that 606, 609 611, 613, success in of support Johnson's the period reasonable would that be there 1080982 exists any benefit t o h e r as a r e s u l t As reasonable previously recusal o n l y when question future mandamus there however, mandamus r e v i e w . PETITION case the t o compel evidence monetary relief. a judge's to c a l l into A t some p o i n t i n t h e the t r i a l h i s recusal not been judge may u n d e r Canon demonstrated Therefore, the p e t i t i o n to this become 3; Court such on i s denied. DENIED. Cobb, C . J . , and L y o n s , Woodall, l i e of the judge. requiring have will i s sufficient of this of facts for quantifying of the requested i n j u n c t i v e the i m p a r t i a l i t y litigation apprised facts, noted, basis Smith, Stuart, Bolin, and themselves. 16 and P a r k e r , J J . , c o n c u r . Murdock, JJ., recuse

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.