ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA, INC. v. Cafesjian
783 F. Supp. 2d 78
D.D.C.2011Background
- Consolidated actions involve attempts to create a genocide memorial/museum in Washington, D.C. they filed against Cafesjian Waters AGM & M and related entities.
- A twelve-day bench trial occurred in November 2010; the court’s January 26, 2011 Memorandum Opinion dismissed most claims but allowed indemnification for Cafesjian and Waters and affirmed a Grant Agreement creating a reversionary interest in AGM & M properties.
- Plaintiffs moved for a new trial (the 208 motion) joined by AGM & M; Defendants opposed, and the court’s memorandum resolves the motion.
- Plaintiffs alleged a mutual interest/bias between the Court and Cafesjian in glass art and a political connection to former President Clinton.
- The court held there is no bias and denied the motion for a new trial; the motion was untimely and not a valid §144 motion, and no §455 disqualification was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the motion for a new trial | Plaintiffs contend timely filing under §144/§455 | Defendants argue untimeliness | Untimely; alternative merits analysis addressed |
| Whether shared glass-art interest creates impartiality concerns | Plaintiffs claim mutual interest bias | Court had no actual bias from shared interest | No reasonable observer would question impartiality; no disqualification |
| Whether political connections to President Clinton require recusal | Alleged political nexus undermines impartiality | Political connections to appointing president do not mandate recusal | No basis for recusal |
Key Cases Cited
- Litkey v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (bias or appearance of bias standard for disqualification)
- United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C.Cir. 2001) (impartiality standard for recusal)
- In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 467 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D.D.C. 2006) (discretion in ruling on new trials)
- Loving Spirit Found., Inc., 392 F.3d 496 (D.C.Cir. 2004) (timeliness and good faith certification requirements under §144)
- Lovaglia v. 954 F.2d 811, 954 F.2d 811 (2d Cir. 1992) (remote or speculative interests not disqualifying)