Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of America x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Civil Rights: Other | Connecticut
Order on Motion to Stay
ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for a stay (ECF No. 746) of proceedings pending resolution of her judicial disqualification motion (ECF No. 744) is DENIED as moot because I have denied the latter motion.Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 1/12/2026. (Nelson, D)
Order on Motion to Transfer / Disqualify / Recuse Judge
ORDER: Plaintiff’s motion to recuse the undersigned judge (ECF No. 744) is DENIED. The motion is largely based on the same grounds on which Plaintiff previously sought, and was denied, recusal: (1) that the undersigned graduated from Yale Law School, (2) that I was a partner at Day Pitney LLP, (3) that I chaired a committee of the Connecticut Bar Association, and (4) that I am a defendant in another case she has filed in this District. As I have previously explained, none of these are grounds for recusal. See ECF No. 467, which I incorporate in this ruling by reference. The motion also complains that I was rude or dismissive of Plaintiff, or somehow demonstrated bias, at the status conference held in February 2024. I addressed that argument already, too, see ECF No. 467; but in any event, Plaintiff is incorrect: as the transcript demonstrates, I convened the status conference in an effort to assist Plaintiff – and to expedite the litigation – by explaining to her some of the procedural and substantive rules that would apply to her case, especially given that she chose to sue some 400 defendants. A judge’s explaining the law to a party – even if the judge gets the explanation wrong, which is not the case here – is not a basis for recusal. Plaintiff also claims that I have improperly “engineered” the docket to ensure all of her cases are assigned to me. She offers no evidence to support this accusation, and it, too, is baseless; her open cases not naming me as a defendant were assigned to me pursuant to court policy. Her remaining allegations are conclusory and, to the extent they make assertions of fact, baseless.
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.