I wonder if State District Judge Migdalia Lopez wished she would have just recused herself?
Now another box of Pandora's opens and all that remains inside is hope?
For Rosenthal, Chaney's Two Sentences concisely confirm "the way things are in Rome".
Says Limas was present for his lunch with judge
March 14, 2012 9:47 PM
By EMMA PEREZ-TREVINO, The Brownsville Herald
Senior Appellate Judge Linda Yañez expects to rule by Monday if the impartiality of state District Judge Migdalia Lopez was compromised and if Lopez should be removed from hearing a lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad and a train engineer.
Yañez held a hearing in Raymondville Wednesday on a request by Austin attorney Marc G. Rosenthal that Lopez be recused from presiding over the lawsuit he filed in Willacy County on behalf of Viviana Sosa and others.
Rosenthal claims that Lopez favors Union Pacific, engineer Ernesto Ortegon and their attorneys, Colvin, Chaney, Saenz & Rodriguez, L.L.P., and Mitchell C. Chaney.
“It’s the truth,” Rosenthal testified Wednesday.
Chaney and the firm countered that Rosenthal was providing the court with an example of abusive and wasteful litigation tactics and that other courts have sanctioned him for actions that were found to “breed disrespect for the judicial process.”
Rosenthal testified that former 404th District Judge Abel C. Limas called him on Lopez’s behalf, saying she wanted to meet with him on Feb. 16, 2010, at the Four Corners Restaurant in Brownsville to discuss something important.
The Sosa case, which alleges wrongful death, already was before Lopez, who is judge of the 197th state district court.
Rosenthal said he met Lopez at the restaurant and that Limas was also present. At the time, Lima had already left the bench and was of-counsel to Rosenthal on the Sosa case.
Rosenthal claims Lopez told him at the meeting that Chaney previously gave her a $1,000 campaign contribution, that Chaney’s firm was one where she could practice law one day, and that she liked Chaney’s law firm and Union Pacific because they could help her in her political endeavors.
Rosenthal says he told Lopez he felt uncomfortable because Chaney was a defense attorney on the case. He alleges she then told him she was aware that he was a large contributor and asked him for a $2,500 campaign contribution, which he gave her.
Rosenthal testified that he felt threatened, alleging Lopez told him not to say anything about their conversation, and with a wink and smile, added that otherwise, she would have to take action — which he wouldn’t like — on the case.
Chaney argued that Rosenthal’s testimony was hearsay, not admissible, and that Rosenthal also had failed to specify grounds for Lopez’s recusal.
Yañez indicated that she was allowing leeway due to the uniqueness of the request for recusal, a request that alleged ex-parte and extrajudicial communication. Ex-parte communication is between a judge and one party outside the presence of the other party.
Chaney said Rosenthal’s allegations were “very suspicious by virtue of their tardiness,” pointing out that it took Rosenthal more than two years to complain. Rosenthal said he had feared complaining would affect his client.
“I made the decision to protect my client and I have no regrets,” Rosenthal testified.
Chaney argued that a judge having friends is not a basis for recusal and neither are campaign contributions.
Rosenthal countered that the Texas Supreme Court amended Canon 5 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct to add that a statement made during a campaign for judicial office could cause a judge’s impartiality to be reasonably questioned in the context of a particular case, and could result in recusal.
Chaney attempted to introduce an affidavit he said was signed by Limas. But Yañez, instead, told Chaney she would give him time to bring Limas to the hearing to testify. The defense says Limas said he had arranged the lunch and that he was present for it, but that he didn’t hear what Rosenthal alleges Lopez told him.
Chaney withdrew the affidavit and decided not to call Limas to the hearing.
Lopez did not attend the hearing.
