EDMONDSON v. LILLISTON FORD, INC.
1:13-cv-07704
D.N.J.Mar 3, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Edmondson, proceeding pro se, moves to disqualify the court under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1) and argues arbitration should be AAA-administered.
- This is Edmondson's fourth recusal/disqualification motion; prior motions were denied as meritless.
- Court previously ordered the parties to select an arbitrator by March 10, 2016; Edmondson contends AAA rules require AAA-administered arbitration.
- Court notes parties failed to present AAA rule language at oral argument and questions the parties’ factual representations.
- Court converts Edmondson's motion to a motion for reconsideration of the February 18, 2016 order and vacates that order to reassess arbitration under AAA rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to disqualify the court for bias | Edmondson alleges bias and seeks recusal. | Defendants argue no basis for recusal; entrenched rulings do not show bias. | Denial of disqualification; no bias shown |
| Whether the February 18, 2016 order directing arbitration should be reconsidered | AAA rules require AAA-administered arbitration per contract. | Arguments insufficient to show AAA arbitration is mandated. | Reconsideration granted; vacate Feb. 18 order pending show cause |
| Whether the contract requires AAA arbitration and costs be borne by Defendants | Arbitration must be conducted by AAA and costs allocated per AAA Rules. | Costs and administration not clearly required by contract or AAA. | Court to require showing that contract compels AAA-administered arbitration and cost allocation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (adverse rulings alone rarely justify recusal; need deep-seated bias)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (bias motions require extreme favoritism or antagonism affecting fair judgment)