76 So. 3d 465
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dr. Slaughter sued the Board for past due wages in 2009; trial court ruled for the Board on merits.
- Dr. Slaughter moved to recuse Judge Kelley, alleging bias and failure to disclose his wife’s position as Louisiana’s Commissioner of Administration.
- Judge Kelley referred the recusal motion to Judge Clark; Slaughter then moved to recuse Judge Clark based on DeCuir firm representations.
- Judge Clark denied recusal, then denied recusal of Kelley; Slaughter sought supervisory writs challenging Clark’s ruling and procedure.
- During the writ proceedings the Board moved for sanctions for frivolous recusal motions; Judge Kelley imposed sanctions on Slaughter (not on counsel Craft).
- Writ action later led to Judge Fields denying recusal of Kelley and ultimately the written sanctions judgment against Slaughter being affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions for frivolous recusal motions were proper | Slaughter argues motions were well grounded and not frivolous | Board contends motions were frivolous and abusive | Sanctions affirmed; motions deemed frivolous and improper under Article 863 |
| Timeliness of Slaughter's motion to recuse Judge Kelley under Article 154 | Motion timely because grounds discovered before judgment | Motion untimely; grounds not discovered until after trial | Untimely under majority view; sanctions upheld on other grounds |
| Whether recusal grounds showed bias; sanction reliance valid | Judge Kelley biased; relationship to Commissioner of Administration irrelevant | No proven bias or appearance of impropriety; grounds insufficient | No manifest error; sanctions upheld based on frivolousness of at least one motion |
| Standard of review for sanctions and impact of Article 863 | Defer to trial court’s factual findings | Abuse of discretion standard governs sanctions | Manifest error standard for imposition; abuse of discretion in amount affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Radcliffe v. Zip Tube Systems of Louisiana, 942 So.2d 1071 (La. 2006) (timeliness of recusal motion depends on discovery of grounds; disclosure may be insufficient)
- Witter v. Witter, 648 So.2d 1052 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1994) (sanctions not warranted for mere disagreement; only exceptional circumstances)
- Connelly v. Lee, 699 So.2d 411 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1997) (sanctions require violation of Article 863, with reasonable inquiry into facts and law)
- Tubbs v. Tubbs, 700 So.2d 941 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1997) (Article 863 sanctions reserved for exceptional circumstances)
- Southern Casing of Louisiana, Inc. v. Houma Avionics, Inc., 809 So.2d 1040 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2001) (recusal and bias grounds—discretionary considerations for impartiality)