Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Judge’s Declaration Was Enough to Defeat Disqualification
Presiding Justice Rubin Says Judge Bowick’s Denial of Allegation That Judge Byrdsong Entered Her Chambers Was Sufficient Basis for Rejecting Allegation That Her Ruling Was Influenced by Conversation Concerning Case
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district yesterday denied a petition for a writ of mandate aimed at forcing Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephanie Bowick to step aside from post-trial proceedings in a case in which a jury brought in a $25 million verdict for the plaintiff, saying that her declaration denying conduct alleged by the defendants’ lawyers constituted substantial evidence supporting non-recusal.
Presiding Justice Laurence D. Rubin of Div. Five authored the opinion. It rejects a challenge to Orange Superior Court Judge Maria D. Hernandez’s order denying a statement of disqualification.
The statement was filed after Bowick revealed in court the actions by and communications from Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rupert Byrdsong in connection with the case, a retaliatory-discharge suit against Bassett Unified School District in San Gabriel Valley.
According to a declaration by two attorneys for the defendant and a paralegal in their firm, when Byrdsong came to her courtroom during a break, bringing a small container of food for her, Bowick addressed her colleague as “Judge” and “invited him back to chambers.”
The next day, she changed a ruling—one which now favored the plaintiff. Plaintiff Michael Ross was represented by the law firm of Ivie, McNeill, Wyatt, Purcell & Diggs, for which Byrdsong had worked prior to his appointment to the bench in 2014.
Denies Allegation
However, Bowick, in responding to the statement of disqualification pursuant to a for-cause challenge, denied the allegation that Byrdsong went into her chambers.
Hernandez said in her order denying a disqualification:
“Based on the assertion that Judge Brydsong [sic] had gone into chambers, the Statement of Disqualification speculates that Judge Bowick changed her ruling on admissibility of the allegations of the prior suit based on her interaction with Judge Byrdsong. This speculates about Judge Bowick’s veracity and motivations for her rulings, and provides no facts establishing grounds for disqualification. There is conflicting evidence whether Judge Byrdsong even went into chambers….Judge Bowick declares she would have disclosed it had it occurred.”
Rubin wrote:
“Whether Judge Bowick met with Judge Byrdsong in her chambers was a disputed issue, one which Judge Hernandez impliedly resolved against the existence of a meeting. This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence—specifically, Judge Bowick’s statement that Judge Byrdsong did not go into her chambers and she would have disclosed it if he had.”
Remark Recounted
The lawyers for the defendant and the paralegal, in their declaration, said: “When Judge Byrdsong emerged from chambers, defense counsel Ms. [Deborah ] Lee-Germain, not knowing that he was a judicial officer, jokingly said ‘nothing for me?’ in reference to the food and he replied, ‘you don’t wear a robe.’ ”
Rubin remarked in a footnote that the statement that “Lee-Germain…did not know Judge Byrdsong was a judicial officer at the time he emerged from Judge Bowick’s chamber…does not easily co-exist with counsel hearing Judge Bowick call Judge Byrdsong ‘Judge’ when inviting him into chambers.”
He went on to comment, in connection with Hernandez’s implied finding that Byrdsong did not go into chambers:
“While the school district’s statement suggests that both attorneys and the paralegal who submitted verifications saw Judge Byrdsong go into chambers, the statement contains internal inconsistencies (regarding, for example, when each realized Judge Byrdsong was a judge), and Judge Hernandez could reasonably have found that the absence of individual declarations documenting individual recollections rendered the group declaration less worthy of belief.”
Byrdsong’s Conduct
Bowick revealed at a post-trial proceeding that Byrdsong (the 2021-22 president of the California Judges Association and 2006 president of the John M. Langston Bar Association) mentioned to her “[o]n or about June 27, 2022,” as they were exiting the courthouse, that his old firm was trying a case before her; on July 6, entered her courtroom and conversed with counsel for the plaintiff at the counsel table, and later brought her food. She disclosed that on July 7, she saw Byrdsong in the audience and had a note passed to him asking that he leave, which he did.
On July 22, the jury delivered a verdict for $24,584,449. Bowick related:
“On the evening of Sunday, July 24, 2022, I received a text message from Judge Byrdsong on my cell phone that stated: ‘25 Million Dollars!! confetti emoji, confetti emoji.’ ”
Remaining Issue
Having disposed of the contention relating to Byrdsong’s alleged conversation with Bowick in her chambers, Rubin said:
“Stripped of any adverse inferences arising from the timing of Judge Bowick’s pretrial ruling on a substantively important, but procedurally routine, evidentiary issue, we are left with a final discrete issue: would the facts disclosed by Judge Bowick lead a well-informed, thoughtful and reasonable observer to entertain a doubt about Judge Bowick’s impartiality? “Although the record covers several days of pretrial and postverdict events, the relevant facts involve little that Judge Bowick did or said. We ask: Whether an objective person would reasonably entertain a doubt about Judge Bowick’s impartiality because of Judge Byrdsong’s actions.”
He expressed agreement with Hernandez’s conclusion that “[a] brief encounter with a judicial colleague who years earlier had worked with plaintiffs’ law firm and knew and was friendly with the attorneys on the case forms no basis for Judge Bowick’s disqualification.”
The case is Basset Unified School District v. Superior Court (Ross), 2023 S.O.S. 941
Lee-Germain and Thomas M. Madruga of Olivarez Madruga Law Organization joined with Robert A. Olson and Edward L. Xanders of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland in arguing for the granting of a writ. Representing Ross were Tracy L. Fehr of Alexander Morrison + Fehr; Rodney S. Diggs of Ivie McNeill Wyatt Purcell & Diggs; and Britany M. Engelman of Engelman Law.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company