Angelica Christina Limcaco v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, et al.

In 1974, Congress amended the Judicial Code “ to broaden and clarify the g rounds for judicial disqualification.” 88 Stat. 1609. The first sentence of the amendment provides: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), as amended. In Liljeberg, this Court cited the Fifth Circuit’s analysis and expressed, “the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that a violation of § 455(a) is established when a reasonable person, knowing the relevant facts, would expect that the justice…knew of circumstances creating an appearance of partiality, notwithstanding a finding that the judge was not actually conscious of those circumstances. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 108 S.Ct. 2197. In 1994, this Court incorporated the “extrajudicial source” doctrine in analyzing violations of Section § 455. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1149 (1994). In this case, Petitioner discovered (after filing her reply brief in the court below), that Respondent WLV’s lead counsel, Elayna Youchah (“Youchah”) was elevated to fill the vacancy of the magistrate judge in Petitioner’s case in district court, while Petitioner’s case was pending. Youchah’s motion to dismiss was granted (dismissing Petitioner’s case without leave to amend). Petitioner then discovered payment arrangements between Respondents and agents of the district court. Petitioner raised these issues in supplemental briefing with the court below. Nonetheless, the court below narrowed the standard for a violation of Section 455(a) and held that Petitioner’s “‘newly discovered’ evidence [did] not reveal any error in