Facts
- Troy Erlenmeyer visited Holzhauer Auto & Truck Sales on December 31, 2019, seeking to purchase a vehicle, eventually acquiring a 2012 Ford Escape based on misleading representations about its ownership and accident history [lines="42-55"].
- The vehicle's retail price included various fees, leading to a financed amount totaling $14,603.60, despite Troy's later assertion that the vehicle's true market value was significantly lower due to undisclosed previous accidents and ownerships [lines="57-65"], [lines="75-81"].
- Troy filed a complaint on November 10, 2021, alleging consumer fraud against Holzhauer for misrepresenting the vehicle's condition, claiming damages exceeding $10,000 [lines="72-84"].
- The trial court granted Holzhauer's motion for judgment after Troy presented his case-in-chief, citing insufficient evidence to support damages [lines="31-32"], [lines="513"].
- Troy’s expert witness testimony on damages was deemed inadmissible, as he lacked the qualifications necessary to provide a proper vehicle valuation [lines="264-269"].
Issues
- Did the trial court err in concluding that Troy failed to produce sufficient evidence of damages related to the vehicle's value at the time of purchase? [lines="32-33"].
- Was the exclusion of Troy's testimony regarding the vehicle’s value due to his insufficient qualifications an abuse of discretion? [lines="609-610"].
- Did the trial court improperly deny Troy's motion to identify a late expert witness after the discovery deadline? [lines="727-728"].
Holdings
- The trial court did not err; it found that Troy failed to establish damages, asserting that he did not provide adequate evidence to calculate losses based on fair market value [lines="476-513"].
- The exclusion of Troy’s testimony regarding the car's value was not an abuse of discretion, as he demonstrated no expertise in vehicle valuation [lines="622-723"].
- Denying Troy's motion to name a late expert was within the trial court's discretion, as he did not comply with procedural requirements and failed to demonstrate necessity [lines="728-742"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 MURGUIA
, Chief Judge:
A complaint of judicial misconduct has been filed against a district judge. Review of this complaint is governed by the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (“Judicial-Conduct Rules”), the federal statutes addressing judicial conduct and disability, 28 U.S.C. § 351 et seq. , and relevant prior decisions of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council. In accordance with these authorities, the names of the complainant and the subject judge shall not be disclosed in this order. See Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(g)(2).
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act provides a remedy if a federal judge “has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of 2 I N R E C OMPLAINT OF J UDICIAL M ISCONDUCT the business of the courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 351(a). A chief judge may dismiss a complaint if, following review, he or she finds it is not cognizable under the statute, is directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling, or is frivolous or *2 lacks sufficient evidence to raise an inference of misconduct. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(i)-(iii). Judicial misconduct proceedings are not a substitute for the normal appellate review process and may not be used to seek reversal of a judge’s decision, to obtain a new trial, or to request reassignment to a different judge.
Complainant alleges that the district judge made “abusive and unbecoming” statements during a hearing and improperly suggested that he could “disbar” an attorney. Pursuant to Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(b), a limited inquiry was conducted. As part of the inquiry, a written response from the district judge was requested and considered, and other available information was reviewed.
The district judge suggested that he would take action to ensure the attorney no longer practiced law. Although judges may not inappropriately wield their influence to have an attorney disbarred, see In re Charges of Judicial Misconduct , 465 F.3d 532, 546 (2d Cir. Jud. Council 2006), they “should take appropriate action upon receipt of reliable information … that a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.” Code of Conduct for United States Judges Canon 3(B)(6). This attorney’s conduct warranted referral to the relevant disciplinary body. Indeed, the state bar subsequently disciplined the attorney for his conduct in this case. In this context, the judge’s comments did not constitute misconduct.
Although some of the district judge’s comments were not expressed in a professional manner, a review of the record I N R E C OMPLAINT OF J UDICIAL M ISCONDUCT 3 reveals that the district judge’s treatment of the attorney was not demonstrably egregious and hostile, as required for a finding of misconduct under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. One brief exchange, following a long line of unprofessional and shocking conduct by the attorney, did not interfere with the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. Accordingly, this allegation is dismissed. See Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(A), (D).
That said, the district judge is reminded that a “judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.” Code of Conduct for United States Judges Canon 3(A)(3).