Bloomington Magazine, Inc. v. Kiang
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 54
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Bloom publisher of Bloom Magazine sued Mikado and Truffles for advertising-related claims; contracts existed August 2007 for ads; disputes led to filing December 19, 2008 seeking damages with prejudgment interest; Kiang appeared by attorney in February 2009; November 10, 2009 hearing before Judge Haughton; January 4, 2010 judgment for Kiang; Bloom moved to correct errors and appealed; Bloom sought to set aside judgment under TR60(B) and to recuse judge, alleging campaign-related conflict involving Grodner; Bloom alleged lack of disclosure of the judge’s political relationship with opposing counsel; motion to recuse denied November 17, 2010; remand occurred after Bloom’s July 2010 filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying Bloom’s recusal motion. | Bloom argues impartiality questioned; Grodner’s campaign role created a conflict. | Kiang contends no objective basis to doubt impartiality; no ex parte communications shown. | Yes; court abused discretion and remanded for recusal hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tyson v. State, 622 N.E.2d 457 (Ind. 1993) (recusal when impartiality reasonably questioned; public confidence concern)
- Neiman-Marcus Grp., Inc. v. Robinson, 829 So.2d 967 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (campaign involvement may require disqualification closer in time to the matter)
- Garcia v. Am. Income Life Ins. Co., 664 So.2d 301 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) (campaign proximity can render impartiality questionable)
- Gluth Bros. Const., Inc. v. Union Nat. Bank, 548 N.E.2d 1364 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (campaign-related impartiality concerns discussed in recusal context)