Lawyers want to know more about judge’s financial interests in cases

Plaintiffs' counsel in a major antitrust case over tuna price-fixing have requested more information about the finances of the federal judge who recused herself a month ago after handling the case for seven years.

The motion came one month after an attorney in another case before the same judge asked to "formally brief" his request to review some of her decisions because of potential financial conflicts.

The recusal by U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino in San Diego appeared to be a response to a Wall Street Journal investigation that found 131 federal judges across the nation heard 685 cases between 2010 and 2018 in which they had a financial stake in one or more litigants. The newspaper cited 54 recusal violations in Sammartino cases, the second most of any judge it investigated.

In a letter sent Thursday to John Morrill, clerk of court for the U.S. Southern District of California, Latham & Watkins LLP partner Belinda S. Lee asked for more information about the "family member's financial interests" that prompted Sammartino to recuse on Aug. 31 from In re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, 3:15-md-02670-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal., filed Dec. 9, 2015).

"Given the complexity and interrelated nature of the parties, claims, and cases in this MDL, we respectfully request further information from the court so that we may confirm that all relevant financial interests have now been disclosed, determine whether there were other undisclosed financial interests relevant to the MDL, and evaluate whether our clients' interests may have been compromised," Lee wrote.

A media contact for the Southern District court did not respond to a request for comment from Sammartino. The judge told The Wall Street Journal "the stock neither affected nor impacted her decisions." Several attorneys involved in the case did not respond to emails seeking comment.

In her motion, Lee brought up Sammartino's recent recusal in another case, about alleged breach of contract and other claims by a law firm against two retailers and several other companies. The Eclipse Group LLP v. Target Corporation, 3:15-cv-01411-TWR-BLM (S.D. Cal., filed June 26, 2015).

Court Clerk Morrill sent a letter to litigants on Aug. 3 advising them, "Judge Sammartino informed me that it has recently been brought to her attention that while she presided over the case a family member owned stock in Target Corporation." In a largely identical letter three days later, Morrill revealed "a family member owned stock in Amazon."

These revelations prompted a Sept. 2 letter from attorney Stephen M. Lobbin. The founding partner of SML Avvocati PC in San Diego is representing himself as an intervenor in the case. He said he is a former contract partner with Eclipse. Reached Friday, Lobbin said Sammartino made questionable rulings.

"It's not just the Sammartino needed to be recused, it's that she weirdly decided in Target's favor, the company whose stock she owned," Lobbin said. "We still don't know when she owned it, when recusal should have happened. Our case has been pending for seven years. She's had it the whole time, until now."

A Sept. 10 order transferring the case to a new judge could not be viewed in the docket. On Sept. 27, the new judge, Todd W. Robinson, gave Lobbin 30 days to file "a pleading that identifies which orders, if any, intervenor-plaintiff believes require de novo review by the court."

The Daily Journal reached out to 12 of the 13 California judges mentioned by the Wall Street Journal; one former judge is now retired and could not be located. Three responded: Central District Judge Cormac J. Carney and R. Gary Klausner, and Eastern District Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Each said the cases at issue occurred between 2010 and 2012, they made no substantial decisions, and have since notified the parties.

The sheer number and complexity of cases federal judges handle may be an issue in some alleged conflicts. Lee's letter acknowledged the intricacy of the tuna price- fixing case.

"We realize that it can be difficult to stay abreast of all of the parties who have been involved in this MDL ... The proceedings in these four plaintiff tracks have been voluminous, complex, and interconnected," Lee wrote.

But Lee also noted the impact Sammartino has had on the case: "During the six years that Judge Sammartino presided over the MDL, the judge issued orders that simultaneously determined the scope of DAPs' [direct action plaintiffs] and putative DPP [direct purchaser plaintiffs] class members' claims, including various orders on motions to dismiss."