Procedural dispute dominates hearing over so-called judge search • Alabama Reflector

The rule states that “a plaintiff may dismiss an action without court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who appeared,” according to the Legal Information Institute.

Burke, in an exchange with Ragsdale, disagreed and at one point said the rule applied to plaintiffs, not their attorneys.

“Is this simply a public policy argument? asked Burke.

Ragsdale said no, but that it may have been a matter of judicial policy. Burke said the situation is where they are.

Governor Kay Ivey signed a law in 2022 that makes it a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a doctor to prescribe puberty blockers and hormones as part of child care. gender affirmation to young people under 19. was signed into law, two lawsuits, known as Walker and Ladinsky, were filed.

In the days that followed, the cases were joined and assigned to Burke, after a series of reassignments. The plaintiffs ultimately dismissed both suits. Walker’s attorneys, many of whom are represented by Ragsdale, did not refile. Ladinsky’s attorneys filed a new brief called Eknes-Tucker. That case, which was also assigned to Burke, is listed in court documents as Boe et al.

Burke, a Trump appointee, blocked the state’s ban on puberty blockers and hormones in May 2022, ruling that the law violated parents’ right to make decisions for their children and that the state had failed to show that the drugs caused harm. In 2023, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit overturned Burke’s decision, saying there was no fundamental right to gender-affirming care.

The plaintiffs in the case and the U.S. Department of Justice, which intervened on their behalf, are currently seeking a stay as the Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case challenging a similar ban in Tennessee.

Burke alleges that the first batch of cases were dismissed because they were assigned to him. A three-judge panel wrote a report in October that said “the testimony and evidence convinced the panel that Walker, LadinskiAnd Eknes-Tucker “The attorneys intentionally attempted to steer their cases toward a judge they viewed as favorable and, in particular, to avoid Judge Burke. »

At Thursday's hearing, the parties also discussed a 2003 case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in which a three-judge panel denied the petitioners a writ of mandamus after they were ordered to fire an attorney because of his ties to U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon.

““In these consolidated cases, we are called upon to consider the appropriate course of action when a party is accused of conspiring to obtain the recusal of a district judge by retaining a close relative of the judge as counsel,” the judge wrote. U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Lanier Anderson.

In Re BellSouth Corp., the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to withdraw its order to remove an attorney, a nephew of Clemon, and his law firm from representing a company in a putative racial discrimination class action lawsuit . The three-judge panel did not find that they met the burden of the writ of mandamus.

“(United States District Judge C. Lynwood Smith) began by recognizing that although the Due Process Clause guarantees a defendant in a civil case the right to legal representation, there is no constitutional guarantee absolute right of counsel of his choice,” Anderson wrote. “Among the restrictions placed on a party's choice of counsel,” he acknowledged, “is the fact that a lawyer may not be engaged to manipulate the orderly administration of justice. Although a court must normally find a “compelling reason” to override a party's choice of counsel, the court found that a false hire intended to force the judge to recuse himself constitutes a sufficiently compelling reason. »

Ragsdale said the case had three different opinions and a two-to-one decision, but that was the basis for Burke's language. He also said his clients had not filed a new brief, which Burke acknowledged.

Ragsdale said no one denied that Burke was a factor in the termination, but noted that attorneys cited other reasons for seeking the termination.

Earlier in the hearing, lawyers representing some of the respondents submitted the brief brought by U.S. District Judge Annemarie Axon, also a Trump appointee, when the lawsuit was filed in April 2022. Axon had been one of the previous assignments in the Ladinsky case.

According to the report, Axon transferred the case to Burke because she was four days away from a jury trial that was expected to last more than two weeks, and ongoing transgender cases were time-sensitive.

Christian King, attorney for Jeffrey Doss and Melody Eagan, said the motive for the transfer was unclear because at the time the jury appeared to return within a time frame that would have worked.

Burke said he looked through the entire file and found jury instructions, as well as other documents, that indicated Axon could have been out much longer. Burke said the filing seemed like an attempt to “smear” the court.

“I have a lot of questions about the intent of this measure,” he said.

He said citing only parts of the file that supported their interpretation of the case was misleading. He had to go through the file to find other relevant pieces of information that he said did not support their story.

Burke also directly questioned several other respondent attorneys, telling two of them that they were unlikely to be disciplined, early in the questioning Thursday.

Burke acknowledged that some lawyers had apologized to him and he thanked them.

Defendant attorney Scott McCoy said he regretted the language implying that Burke had contacted the case, because of his understanding of Burke as a conservative.

“Do you know how much I regret drawing this case?” Burke said.

The hearing is expected to continue on Friday.