Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A San Francisco Superior Court judge on Wednesday brushed aside a call to disqualify the entire bench from same-sex marriage cases, saying the presiding judge’s involvement in a suit over domestic partner benefits didn’t create a conflict of interest. “Public perception is the cornerstone of our system,” acknowledged Judge Richard Kramer. But he dismissed the claim that the stake held by Presiding Judge Donna Hitchens and her partner, Judge Nancy Davis, in a Sacramento suit would shake public confidence. After a coordination hearing that lasted for about two hours Wednesday, Kramer concluded that cases that began as five separate suits — one in Los Angeles — should be coordinated in San Francisco Superior Court. Kramer’s recommendation goes to the California Judicial Council, which decides on coordination. Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson, whose office asked that the cases be coordinated, took no position on where the litigation should land. But the Alliance Defense Fund’s Robert Tyler, also backing coordination, pushed to have the cases heard in another venue — such as Sacramento. Tyler cited the fact that Hitchens and Davis are among the interveners in a pending Sacramento County case, Knight v. Davis, 03AS05284. The Alliance Defense Fund is representing a plaintiff in that case, arguing that a state law expanding domestic partners’ rights violates a voter-passed state marriage law — one of the same laws being challenged in the same-sex marriage cases. If that law falls, Knight v. Davis would become moot — so Hitchens and Davis have a direct interest in the outcome of the same-sex marriage litigation, Tyler argued. Likening Hitchens to a “boss” with control over judicial assignments, Tyler concluded “there is certainly a taint” over the whole bench in San Francisco. Kramer seemed doubtful from the start. At one point, he suggested Hitchens’ participation in the litigation so far — routing the coordination petition his way — doesn’t appear controversial. “Does it change your view,” he asked Tyler, “if you know that I do all petitions for coordination?” Citing Canon 2 of the state’s code of judicial ethics, Tyler said, “The test is whether a reasonable person could entertain a doubt” that a judge would be able to act with integrity and impartiality — “not if there’s an actual conflict of interest.” “You do have the standard correct,” Kramer allowed. But he noted that the PJ will change before the next judicial assignments are made. “Doesn’t the fact that Judge Hitchens will not make the next round of assignments obviate that problem?” Judges have direct interests in cases in their counties’ courts “all the time,” Kramer said, adding that colleagues have been class members in class actions before him. “It doesn’t affect me at all that a colleague has an interest.” And in the Sacramento case, Kramer said, Hitchens and Davis would benefit no more than other couples who stood on the sidelines. Later Wednesday, Tyler said, “the judge made the wrong decision,” adding that he plans to look into whether he can appeal. But Kramer sided with Tyler and Deputy AG Wilson on another issue, saying coordination would help avoid administrative problems, inconsistent results, duplication and wasted resources. While attorneys for the city and same-sex couples argued against coordination, they said they were pleased that Kramer is allowing discovery to proceed and matters to be filed, though no hearings to be held, while the Judicial Council considers his recommendation.

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 Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.