PETER ADAMS ET AL v. ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS INC ET AL (2024)

A trial judge's mere knowledge of the amount of a settlement offer does not establish a substantial and objective basis under La. C.C.P. art. 151(B) to warrant recusal.¹ The practical result would otherwise hamstring a trial court's ability to manage its docket. See La. C.C.P. art. 1631(A) (trial court “has the power to require that the proceedings shall be conducted ․ in an orderly and expeditious manner, and to control the proceedings at the trial, so that justice is done”); Brown v. Drillers, Inc., 93-1019 (La. 1/14/94), 630 So.2d 741, 757 (compromises and settlements are favored in the law as a matter of public policy). Counsel for a litigant could create automatic grounds for recusal by their own utterance of a proposed settlement offer. Further, taken to its logical conclusion, the court of appeal's reasoning would require the recusal of any appellate judge who reads the record and becomes aware of the amount of a settlement offer. A greater and more individualized factual basis is required.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The alleged impartiality would only apply to quantum not liability. The more expedient remedy is for a litigant to seek appellate review of damages awarded, if any.

GRIFFIN, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.