Listen to this article
Where (1) two plaintiffs sued the Republic of Lebanon in 2004, (2) the complaint was dismissed based on Lebanon’s immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and (3) years later, one of the plaintiffs moved under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure to reinstate the case based on what it characterized as newly discovered evidence of fraud, including unsworn letters purportedly originating in Lebanese government offices, a judge’s decision to deny the motion should be affirmed because the motion was filed long after the one-year deadline, it fails on the merits and nothing in the record would cause a reasonable observer to question the judge’s impartiality.
“In 2004, American Telecom Company, L.L.C. and American Telecom Group–USA, L.L.C. (together, ‘American Telecom’) sued the Republic of Lebanon alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud arising from Lebanon’s cellular-network tender process. The district court dismissed the action after holding that Lebanon was immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (‘FSIA’) because no statutory exception applied. We affirmed.
“Nearly two decades later, American Telecom moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reinstate the case based on what it characterized as newly discovered evidence of fraud, including unsworn letters purportedly originating in Lebanese government offices. The district court denied the motion as untimely and meritless. American Telecom then sought reconsideration and moved to recuse the district court judge, pointing to a footnote in the court’s order that dismissed Plaintiffs’ allegations of misconduct as ‘not well-taken.’ The district court denied both motions.
“American Telecom now appeals. Because the Rule 60(b) motion was filed long after the one-year deadline and, in any event, fails on the merits, and because nothing in the record would cause a reasonable observer to question the district judge’s impartiality, we affirm. …
“… American Telecom’s motion was filed nearly two decades after entry of judgment, far beyond the one-year limit. A court abuses its discretion if it grants an untimely Rule 60(b)(2) motion. … Thus, the district court correctly denied the motion as untimely.
“Even setting timeliness aside, Rule 60(b)(2) ‘newly discovered evidence’ must be material and likely to change the result, and the movant must show due diligence. … The unsworn letters that American Telecom submitted nearly two decades later do not alter the FSIA jurisdictional analysis, because even if they are authentic, they have no bearing on whether Lebanon’s conduct caused a direct effect in the United States. … Evidence that is merely cumulative of prior allegations of fraud does not justify Rule 60 relief. …
“Rule 60(b)(3) requires proof of fraud by clear and convincing evidence. … Unsworn hearsay assertions of unclear origin do not meet that burden. The district court therefore acted within its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(b)(3). …
“We review the denial of a motion to disqualify under 28 U.S.C. §455(a) for abuse of discretion. … Recusal is warranted only if a reasonable observer aware of all the facts would question the judge’s impartiality. … Judicial rulings ordinarily do not constitute evidence of bias unless they reflect ‘deep-seated favoritism or antagonism’ that makes fair judgment impossible. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
“American Telecom first points to statements in the letters asserting that Lebanon believed the district judge was predisposed to rule in its favor. But the subjective belief of a litigant—or of foreign officials—is insufficient to require recusal. … Unsworn, uncorroborated letters amount to ‘conclusory allegations’ inadequate to compel disqualification. …
“Second, American Telecom argues that the district court ‘ignored’ its allegations, but the district court expressly addressed them by stating they were ‘not well-taken.’ Judicial disagreement with a party’s position does not demonstrate bias. Williams v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789, 814 (6th Cir. 2006).
“Third, American Telecom contends that the ‘not well-taken’ footnote was a veiled threat, but properly understood, the phrase simply means not ‘well-grounded’ or ‘justifiable,’ a legally commonplace response to unsupported allegations. … Even if the statement were construed as a reprimand or pejorative attack, judicial remarks expressing frustration or impatience do not require recusal absent deep-seated antagonism. … Even construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the footnote here amounts to an ‘ordinary admonishment[]’ at best, which simply does not support a motion for recusal. … The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to recuse.”
%20motion%20–%20Judicial%20impartiality){kind=link}