Judge Moses emphasized the mandatory nature of disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, stating, “It’s not permissive, it’s mandatory.” Jones’ attorney, John J. Sparacino of McKool Smith, argued for dismissal based on judicial immunity, but Judge Moses remained skeptical.
Judge Moses and Sparacino debated whether Jones’ decision not to recuse constituted a judicial act, with the judge noting that Jones would have known “on day one” if disqualification applied. “Do you not have heartburn over that a little bit?” she asked Sparacino.
Despite her firm stance on Jones’ need to recuse, Judge Moses was less certain about exceptions to judicial immunity applying to Van Deelen’s claims. Van Deelen’s attorney, Robert W. Clore of Bandas Law Firm PC, argued that Jones’ concealment of his relationship and actions directing disclosures were nonjudicial acts, thus not protected by immunity.
Judge Moses also questioned Van Deelen’s standing to sue, agreeing with Jackson Walker attorney Jennifer Elizabeth Brevorka of Rusty Hardin & Associates that Van Deelen’s claims of harm to the bankruptcy estate failed the standing test. However, she was troubled by the handling of Van Deelen’s motion to recuse Jones, which was referred to and denied by U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen.
