Confused by Clarion-Ledger Article on Union Carbide $322 Million Smith County Verdict Case
Yesterday the Mississippi Supreme Court stayed further proceedings in the Union Carbide v. Brown case pending a determination of Union Carbide's motion to recuse Judge Eddie Bowen. Here is the Supreme Court's Order. Here is my post where I wrote about the recusal motion.
The Clarion-Ledger article confuses me and makes me suspect that I am missing a piece of the puzzle. I get this part of the article:
Union Carbide Corp. had asked Bowen of Raleigh to vacate the jury award and to step aside from any further action in the case because he didn't divulge that his father had filed two similar asbestos cases.
Bowen's inaction resulted in Union Carbide petitioning the Supreme Court to force him off the case.
The judge's bias and prejudice against Union Carbide and Chevron Phillips, the other party being sued, were evidenced in his rulings, comments in front of the jury, and his coaching of Brown's attorneys in questioning witnesses, according to Union Carbide's motion.
Here is where the article loses me:
Georgia Pacific filed court papers last month saying Bowen, who was presiding over three Mississippi lawsuits involving the company, had sued one of the company's subsidiaries in Jasper County.
The company said the lawsuit filed by Tullos on behalf of Bowen and others is materially similar to the pending lawsuits assigned to Bowen.
What is this talking about? How did the article go from Union Carbide to Georgia Pacific? Is this talking about the same case or a related case? Did Judge Bowen not recuse himself from the case even though he had sued the defendant? I can't tell.
Someone help me out here.
Has anyone seen the stay order?
Not at all clear. Would have gotten a D+ at best in my freshman writing course.
The "[GP] court papers filed last month" were in one of the "other cases" Bowen did recuse himself from because "he might have a conflict."
On a side note, seems odd GP had to go to the trouble of filing a recusal motion in a case in which it is being sued by a lawyer [Gene the Machine, no less] who represents the judge in a case against its subsidiary (regardless of whether "substantially similar").
Come to think of it, any case in which one of the parties is represented by a lawyer who also represents the trial judge personally seems to be one in which a reasonable person "might" question the judge's impartiality. Then again, I've always had trouble figuring out what a reasonable person might think.
Sounds less like it's confusing but rather that the argument is just as bad it sounds. Basically billing hours to throw a little blanket of paperwork on the plaintiffs. Not sure how this isn't purposely frivolous billable hour generating fake-work.