WASHINGTON
v.
PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to show any reasonable question as to the court's impartiality or any personal bias, thus recusal is not justified.
Plaintiff moved for disqualification of the judge, alleging ex parte communications based on an affidavit from her brother. The affidavit stated he sa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bias And Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for disqualification, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. Dkt. 3. In pertinent part, she asserts the Court appears to be or is actually partial because of "ex parte communications" that allegedly occurred. Id. at 1. Specifically, the attached affidavit of Plaintiff's brother states he was at the Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse on June 10, 2025. Dkt. 3-1 at 2. He saw five people he believed to be either judges or judicial staff who are presiding over, defendants in, or witnesses in the various cases Plaintiff and her siblings have pending in Florida. Id. at 2-3. Affiant "suspect[s] or reasonably believe[s]" that group of people "went to the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division location to meet with Judge [Steven D.] Merryday and/or William F. Jung." Id. at 3. He believes some sort of conspiracy was entered. Id. at 5.
1
The affidavit attached to Plaintiff's motion is not relevant to the present proceeding, and is in fact pure fantasy. No serious person would consider it as bona fide. Plaintiff has failed to show any reasonable question as to the Court's impartiality, or any personal bias or prejudice of the undersigned concerning a party in this case. Recusal is not justified. See § 455; Fox v. Prudential Fin., 178 F. App'x 915, 919 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding a reasonable person would not find partiality based on unsupported, conclusory statements that “secret discussions" occurred between the defendant and the court); Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1372 (M.D. Ga. 2009), aff'd, 368 F. App'x 949 (11th Cir. 2010) (finding the unsubstantiated and false accusation that the judge ex parte met with a third party did not support recusal).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED: Plaintiff's motion for disqualification, Dkt. 3, is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 11, 2025.
/s/ William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record Plaintiff, pro se
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. Primerica Life Ins. Co., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…Prudential Fin., 178 F. App'x 915, 919 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding a reasonable person would not find partiality based on unsupported, conclusory statements that “secret discussions" occurred between the defendant and the court); Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1372 (M.D. Ga. 2009), aff'd, 368 F. App'x 949 (11th Cir. 2010) (finding the unsubstantiated and false accusation that the judge ex parte met with a third party did not support recusal). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED: Plaintiff's…
-
Debose v. Fla. Polytechnic Univ. Bd. of Trs., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…Prudential Fin., 178 F. App'x 915, 919 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding a reasonable person would not find partiality based on unsupported, conclusory statements that "secret discussions" occurred between the defendant and the court); Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1370–72 (M.D. Ga. 2009), aff'd, 368 F. App'x 949 (11th Cir. 2010) (finding (1) the affidavit supporting the motion for recusal was insufficient because it was not executed by the aggrieved party to the action, as required by § 144, and (2) the unsu…
Authorities Cited
- Washington v. Primerica Life Ins. Co., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Fla. 2025)