Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:471IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ANNABEL MELONGO, Plaintiff, v. ASA ROBERT PODLASEK; ASA JULIE GUNNIGLE; INVESTIGATOR KATE O’HARA (Star No. 423); INVESTIGATOR JAMES DILLON (Star No. 1068); INVESTIGATOR ANTONIO RUBINO (Star No. 5043); INVESTIGATOR RICH LESIAK (Star No. 5000); UNKNOWN COOK COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICERS; DR. MATTHEW S. MARKOS; ASST. ATTY. GENERAL KYLE FRENCH; COOK COUNTY SHERIFF THOMAS DART; COOK COUNTY; INVESTIGATOR RANDY ROBERTS; SCHILLER PARK DET. WILLIAM MARTIN; VILLAGE OF SCHILLER PARK; CAROL SPIZZIRRI, Defendants. No. 13-cv-4924 Judge John Z. Lee DEFENDANT SPIZZIRRI’S MOTION FOR LAW CLERK, JULIA RICKERT, TO RECUSE HERSELF OR, IF IMPRACTICABLE OR IMPOSSIBLE, FOR JUDGE JOHN Z. LEE TO RECUSE HIMSELF NOW COMES Defendant, CAROL SPIZZIRRI, by and through her attorney, Donald J. Angelini, Jr. of the law firm of Angelini & Ori, LLC, and for her Motion for Law Clerk, Julia Rickert to Recuse Herself or, if Impracticable or Impossible, for Judge John Z. Lee to Recuse Himself, states as follows: PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Plaintiff, ANNABEL MELONGO (“Plaintiff Melongo”), originally filed this Complaint on July 10, 2013. ECF 1. At the time the original Complaint was filed, Defendant, CAROL SPIZZIRRI (“Defendant Spizzirri”), was not a named Defendant. ECF 1. 1 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:472 2. On November 5, 2014, Plaintiff Melongo filed her Second Amended Complaint, which was the first time Defendant Spizzirri was added as a defendant. ECF 48. Defendant Spizzirri was served on November 19, 2014 (ECF 78), vacated any default entered against her on August 11, 2015 (ECF 93), and answered the Second Amended Complaint on August 18, 2015 (ECF 95). 3. All parties and the Court are well aware of the numerous delays in this matter, and this motion is not intended to further delay the final disposition of the case. It is, however, intended to ensure impartiality as the case proceeds to its final disposition. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4. In approximately the second week of May 2016, counsel for Defendant Spizzirri became aware that Julia Rickert (“Ms. Rickert”), one of the three law clerks employed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, specifically in Judge John Z. Lee’s courtroom, was a former temporary employee of the Save-A-Life Foundation (“SALF”). See Exhibit A for a page of Judge Lee’s “Judge’s Information” webpage listing Ms. Rickert as a law clerk. 5. Upon information and belief, there is only one Ms. Rickert licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois, and she is the same Ms. Rickert who is Judge Lee’s current law clerk and former employee of SALF. See Exhibit B for the Lawyer Search Results of the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. If, of course, the Ms. Rickert quoted in the below-referenced exhibits are not the same Ms. Rickert who is now Judge Lee’s law clerk, Defendant Spizzirri will withdraw this motion. 2 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:473 6. Defendant Spizzirri founded and operated SALF, and SALF contracted certain employees through a temporary employment agency known as Manpower. Manpower placed Ms. Rickert at SALF for a second term in approximately February 2007. 7. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Rickert apparently wrote a letter to then State Senate President, Emil Jones, and filed a complaint with the Illinois Inspector General requesting an investigation of SALF. See Exhibit C for a May 30, 2007 article written by ABC reporter, Chuck Goudie. Plaintiff Melongo even attached this article as an exhibit to her June 17, 2009 Motion to Dismiss Indictment. 8. Additionally, the video report that corresponds to Chuck Goudie’s article attached as Exhibit C is available online and includes Chuck Goudie’s interview of Ms. Rickert regarding her complaints made to State Senator Jones and the Inspector General, as well as the specifics of her allegations. See www.vimeo.com/1602289 starting at 02:30 for the relevant portion of the video report. A disk of the video is also attached as Exhibit D. REQUEST FOR THE RECUSAL OF JULIA RICKERT 9. Given this factual background, Defendant Spizzirri, with all due respect to Ms. Rickert, requests that she recuse herself from any involvement whatsoever in the proceedings of this case. This recusal should extend to all aspects of her job, including but not limited to research, drafting, discussions with Judge Lee, discussions with other chambers’ staff, and substantive contact with counsel for any party. 10. A law clerk should avoid conflicts of interest in the performance of official duties, and such conflicts arise when a judicial employee knows that he or she might be so personally affected by a matter that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question the judicial employee’s ability to properly perform official duties in an impartial 3 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:474 manner. Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, § 320 Canon 3(F)(1). Specifically, a judicial employee should refrain from any official activity if he or she has a personal bias against a party before them. Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, § 320 Canon 3 (F)(2)(a)(i). 11. Additionally, when a judicial employee knows that a conflict of interest may be presented, he or she should promptly inform his or her appointing authority, and the appointing authority, after determining a conflict or appearance of a conflict exists, should take appropriate steps to restrict the judicial employee’s performance of official duties. Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, § 320 Canon 3 (F)(3). 12. Given the few instances where a law clerk may have a bias or conflict, it not surprising that case law in this jurisdiction is light on the subject. However, the several other jurisdictions to have taken up the issue consistently recognize that a clerk’s conflict or bias should be treated similar to a conflict or bias of a judge. Undeniably, law clerks have a close relationship with their supervising judge. Hall v. Small Business Admin., 695 F.2d 175,179 (5th Cir. Miss. 1983). In fact, law clerks are likely to act as “sounding boards” during the progression of the case, and a clerk’s position allows unparalleled access and ability to direct the proceedings. Id. Where a judicial employee has a past experience with a defendant, the clerk and defendant have an extrajudicial relationship that raises questions of potential bias or conflict. Spangler v. Sear, Roebuck & Co., 759 F. Supp. 1327, 1331-1332 (S.D. Ind. 1991). Where there is specific evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that prejudice exists, recusal of the judicial employee is proper. Id. 4 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:475 13. Although SALF is not a direct defendant in this action, it is well known by all parties that Defendant Spizzirri was the founder and operator of SALF, many of the alleged facts of this matter occurred either at SALF or were related to SALF, voluminous documents produced in discovery will reference SALF, and dispositive motions or evidence at trial will focus on SALF. Defendant Spizzirri and SALF are too significantly intertwined for Ms. Rickert to be conflicted as to SALF but not as to Defendant Spizzirri. Neither Defendant Spizzirri nor her counsel know for certain whether Ms. Rickert is biased or prejudiced against Defendant Spizzirri, nor do they know for certain whether or not she could proceed in a neutral manner. However, a reasonable person could believe that Ms. Rickert is prejudiced, conflicted, or biased against Defendant Spizzirri, and for the protection of Defendant Spizzirri and the integrity of these proceedings, it is important for all parties to know Ms. Rickert is not involved. REQUEST FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE JOHN Z. LEE 14. Defendant Spizzirri and her counsel realize that, depending on certain circumstances and the operation of chambers, it may be impossible or impracticable for the Court to enforce Ms. Rickert’s recusal and ensure she is not involved in any way with this case. Defendant Spizzirri does not question the impartiality of Judge John Z. Lee in these proceedings, especially if Ms. Rickert is removed from involvement. However, if Judge Lee is unable to ensure Ms. Rickert’s complete recusal, Defendant Spizzirri, with utmost respect to Judge Lee, requests that he recuse himself. 15. “Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceedings in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 USCS § 455(a). Such disqualification is proper in circumstances where “a reasonable person 5 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:476 would be convinced the judge was biased.” Brokaw v. Mercer Count, 235 F.3d 100, 1025 (7th Cir. 2000). As indicated above, courts look to the close relationship between a judge and his or her clerk. A reasonable person could be convinced that, if Ms. Rickert’s recusal is not immediate and complete, she may have an impact on Judge Lee as this matter progresses. Such impact could occur where she performs research, drafts a memorandum, drafts an opinion or portion of an opinion, or act as a “sounding board” for Judge Lee regarding the case. If Ms. Rickert cannot be totally removed from involvement, appointing a new judge would ensure the integrity of the matter for all parties. 16. Defendant Spizzirri makes absolutely no attempt at “arrant judge-shopping” by requesting this recusal. See Sullivan v. Conway, 157 F.3d 1092, 1096 (7th Cir. 1998). In fact, she and her counsel immensely respect Judge Lee and prefer he remain as the judge presiding over this matter. But if Judge Lee cannot adequately remove Ms. Rickert from involvement, it is in the interest of justice that Judge Lee recuse himself to ensure Ms. Rickert is not involved in this case any longer. WHEREFORE, Defendant, CAROL SPIZZIRRI, respectfully requests that law clerk, Julia Rickert, recuse herself from these proceedings entirely and the Court ensure she is completely removed from all involvement or, in the alternative, if it is impossible or impracticable for the Court to ensure Ms. Ricket has no involvement, that Judge Lee recuse himself as the presiding judge over this matter. 6 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:477 Dated: June 3, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, _/s/ Donald J. Angelini, Jr.__ Donald J. Angelini, Jr. Angelini & Angelini 155 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 400 Chicago, Illinois 60601 P: 312.621.0000 F: 312.621.0001
[email protected] Counsel for Defendant, Carol Spizzirri. 7 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127-1 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:478 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127-1 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:479 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127-1 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:480 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127-2 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:481 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127-2 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:482 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127-2 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:483 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127-3 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:484 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127-3 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:485 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127-3 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:486 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127-3 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:487 Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 127-4 Filed: 06/03/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:488