Mushroom Antitrust Defendant Wants Judge to Recuse in Case
With little more than a week to go before trial, a defendant in the antitrust litigation that had been lodged against numerous mushroom growers is calling for the judge to recuse.
May 09, 2019 at 05:48 PM
4 minute read
With little more than a week to go before trial, a defendant in the antitrust litigation that had been lodged against numerous mushroom growers is calling for the judge to recuse.
M.D. Basciani & Sons, which is one of several mushroom growers that had been sued for alleged price-fixing, filed a motion Wednesday saying U.S. District Senior Judge Berle M. Schiller of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania needs to step down from the case after he had alleged ex parte communications with plaintiffs counsel, Bruce Gerstein of Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, and Berger Montague attorney H. Laddie Montague, who is lead counsel for a group of defendants.
The lawsuit is set to go to trial May 20.
The motion, which seeks not only Schiller's recusal but also a stay in the case, said recusal is necessary because Schiller had more than one meeting with Gerstein and Montague without notifying M.D. Basciani & Sons, which is being represented by Kennett Square attorney Thomas K. Schindler and Donna M. Albani of Glen Mills.
Letters Gerstein and Montague filed with the court earlier this week, however, rejected the notion that there was any ex parte communication. The meetings that did take place were held to discuss settlement negotiations that had nothing to do with M.D. Basciani & Sons.
“Mr. Schindler's letter is a baseless effort to derail this long-delayed case,” Gerstein said in his two-page letter. “We respectfully request that the court make it clear that it will not tolerate such efforts so that all parties recognize their obligations to work cooperatively towards the trial.”
According to M.D. Basciani & Sons' motion, the company's attorneys first learned about the alleged ex parte conversations by chance. The motion said Stevens & Lee attorney William DeStefano, who is representing another defendant, had called Albani to notify her that his clients were in settlement talks, and during the course of that conversation, he mentioned that Montague and Gerstein had attended a meeting with Schiller on April 23.
The motion also said that, before a pretrial conference April 26, Albani, DeStefano and Montague shared an elevator. As he left the elevator, DeStefano mentioned that Gerstein and Montague had reached a settlement and had called the judge to report it, the motion said.
According to the motion, after Albani raised the issue during the pretrial conference, Schiller acknowledged that a meeting had taken place, and added that he was not required to give her notice. The parties went on to argue several motions in limine, which were divided up among several defendants. M.D. Basciani & Sons' counsel was not responsible for any of those arguments, the motion said. The motion also said that, after Albani made a motion for recusal, Schiller said he did not know about the settlement, and Montague's May 6 letter also said that the parties had not told the court that there had been a settlement.
M.D. Basciani & Sons' motion, however, contended that because neither Schiller, nor the attorneys, notified M.D. Basciani & Sons about the meeting or conversations, the conversations constituted ex parte communication. The motion further said that M.D. Basciani & Sons had been prejudiced by the alleged ex parte communications because, given the settlement talks, some defendants had no incentive to vigorously argue their motions in limine.
The motion also said that M.D. Basciani & Sons' attorneys spoke with ethics lawyer Sam Stretton, who said the conduct could be a basis for recusal. Stretton is a columnist for Pennsylvania Law Weekly, an ALM publication.
“The proceedings have been irreparably tainted by the discovery of ex parte communications between Mr. Gerstein, Mr. Montague and the court,” Schindler said in a brief supporting the motion. “Further proceedings on the merits will serve only to further taint the proceedings and create additional grounds for reversal.”
Schindler, Montague and Gerstein each did not return a call for comment. DeStefano declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
3 minute readJudge Approves $1.15M Settlement, Reduces Attorney Award in COVID-19 Tuition Reimbursement Suit
4 minute readDechert 'Spark Tank' Competition Encourages Firmwide Innovation Focus
Trending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250