GLOBAL MARKETING SOLUTIONS v. CHEVRON INC (2020)

Writ application denied.

Attachment

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2019-C-1886

GLOBAL MARKETING SOLUTIONS, LLC

VS.

CHEVRON USA, INC., ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF WEST BATON ROUGE

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Recuse Justice William Crain in the above referenced matter. Based on the facts and circumstances of this matter, the recusal of Justice Crain in this case is warranted. See Daurbigney v. Liberty Pers. Ins. Co., 18-0929 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/9/19), 272 So.3d 69; Rippo v. Baker, 580 U.S. 285, 137 S.Ct. 905, 197 L.Ed.2d 167 (2017).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Motion to Recuse Justice William Crain is granted.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 23rd day of January, 2020.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ _

CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

RECORD ENTRY

Attached is my sworn affidavit to be entered into the Court's record of this matter.

Attachment

STATE OF LOUISIANA

PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY

AFFIDAVIT

BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary public, personally came and appeared:

WILLIAM J. CRAIN

who, after being duly sworn, did depose and state:

I have no personal or financial interest in the cases captioned Global Marketing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Chevron U.S.A., et al, Docket No. 19-C-1886 or Global Marketing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc., et al No. 19-CC-1402. I have never performed a judicial act in another court in either of these cases. I can and will fairly and impartially decide any issues presented in these cases based solely on the facts and law applicable to the same. I do not harbor any hostility towards either the parties or their attorneys in the captioned cases, which might impair my ability to be fair and impartial.

_

WILLIAM J. CRAIN

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS _ DAY OF JANUARY, 2020.

NOTARY PUBLIC

I disagree with the majority of this Court's decision to recuse Justice William Crain in this matter and would deny the motion.¹ In my view, recusal is neither required by the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, see La. C.C.P. art. 151(A)(4) (“a judge shall be recused when he is “biased or prejudiced toward or against the parties or the parties' attorneys to such an extent that he would be unable to conduct fair and impartial proceedings”), or federal law, see Rippo v. Baker, 580 U.S. 285, 137 S.Ct. 905, 197 L.Ed. 2d 167 (2017) (the only constitutionally permissible inquiry to be applied at the recusal hearing is, “objectively speaking, ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable’ ”) (emphasis added). See also LaCaze v. Louisiana, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 60, 199 L.Ed. 2d 1 (2017); State v. LaCaze, 16-0234 (La. 3/13/18), 239 So.3d 807, 813, cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 321, 202 L.Ed.2d 218 (2018). Despite the moving parties' assertions to the contrary, Justice Crain's sworn Affidavit demonstrates that he “can and will fairly and impartially decide any issues presented – in these cases based solely on the facts and law applicable to the same.” ² A campaign mailer such as the one at issue here cannot – and should not – be the basis of recusal.

The majority's decision to grant recusation under these circumstances, notwithstanding our colleague's sworn statement, is misguided, if not patently wrong, as neither federal case law or state law requires it. Accordingly, I dissent from the majority's decision and would deny the recusal motion.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Retired Judge James Boddie, Jr., appointed Justice Pro Tempore for Justice Marcus R. Clark, also voted to deny the recusal motion.

2.   The cases to which the moving parties are referring are the “legacy lawsuits,” which identify the litigation brought by landowners seeking to require oil and gas companies to pay for restoration of land that has been environmentally compromised.

Crain, J., recused. Assigns an affidavit for the record. Crichton, J., dissents as to the recusal of Justice Crain and assigns reasons. Boddie, J., dissents as to the recusal of Justice Crain.