EDMONDSON v. LILLISTON FORD, INC. et al, No. 1:2013cv07704 - Document 144 (D.N.J. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/27/2018. (tf, )

Download PDF
EDMONDSON v. LILLISTON FORD, INC. et al Doc. 144 [Dkt. No. 142] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE SARA ANN EDMONDSON, Plaintiff, Civil No. 13-7704 (RMB/JS) OPINION v. LILLISTON FORD, INC., Defendant. This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Sara Ann Edmondson’s Motion to Disqualify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 [Dkt. No. 142]. This is the Plaintiff’s fifth motion to disqualify this Court [Dkt. Nos. 32, 49, 51, 75, and 142]. For the reasons expressed by this Court in its earlier Opinions, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify is DENIED. Plaintiff continues to assert that this Court has a “personal bias or prejudice sufficient to mandate disqualification” [Dkt. 142, at page 8]. Specifically, Plaintiff accuses this Court of a personal bias against her based solely upon this Court’s adverse rulings. This Court has repeatedly stated this is not a basis for a recusal. To the extent that Plaintiff’s motion seeks to set aside the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), the 1 Dockets.Justia.com Court will enter an Order directing Plaintiff to set forth the reasons why Plaintiff believes she is entitled to relief from this Court’s judgment which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on January 11, 2018. [Dkt. No. 138]. Any rehashing of the same arguments that Plaintiff has made over the course of this protracted litigation will not be a basis to set aside the judgment. The Court warns Plaintiff that she may be subject to sanctions by this Court if she continues to pursue the same arguments that have been rejected by this Court and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April 27, 2018 2

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.