throbber

`
`COURT OF CHANCERY
`OF THE
`STATE OF DELAWARE
`
`MORGAN T. ZURN
`VICE CHANCELLOR
`
`
`
`LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
`500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
`WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734
`
`May 10, 2023
`
`Via Electronic Mail:
`Alex Mathew
`Alfromdc202@gmail.com
`
`RE: In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
` Consol. Civil Action No. 2023-0215-MTZ
`
`Dear Mr. Mathew:
`
`I write to address your two motions to recuse Special Master Amato.1 The
`first is denied, and I reserve judgment on the second pending Special Master
`Amato’s submission of an affidavit concerning her alleged conflict.
`
`The first motion begins with the premise that Special Master Amato has a
`brother who edits movies and films “in the entertainment industry, specifically in
`Hollywood.”2 It argues the nature of Hollywood is such that Special Master
`Amato’s brother might face reprisal if her “rulings fall out with the industry.”3 I
`interpret this motion to seek disqualification under Rule 2.11(A)(2)(c) of the
`Delaware Judges’ Code of Judicial Conduct (the “Code of Judicial Conduct”).4
`
`The Code of Judicial Conduct has codified the standard for disqualification
`based on an apparent or actual conflict or bias.5 And while Special Master Amato
`is not a judicial officer, she is performing the duties of one subject to exception and
`de novo review, and so I apply the same standards to her. Rule 2.11 governs
`disqualification, and provides in relevant part:
`
`
`1 Docket Item (“D.I.”) 230; D.I. 241.
`
`2 D.I. 230 ¶ 3.
`
`3 Id. ¶ 5.
`
`4 Del. Judges’ Code of Judicial Conduct (2008) [hereinafter “Code Jud. Con.”].
`
`5 See Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 247 A.3d 229, 242 (Del.
`2021).
`
`
`
`
`
`EFiled: May 10 2023 10:23AM EDT
`Transaction ID 69986488
`Case No. 2023-0215-MTZ
`
`

`

`In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
`Consol. Civil Action No. 2023-0215-MTZ
`May 10, 2023
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`(A) A judge should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in
`which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,
`including but not limited to instances where:
`
`(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party[;]
`
`(2) The judge, . . . or a person within the third degree of relationship,
`calculated according to the civil law system,
`
`. . .
`
`(c) is known by the judge to have an interest that could be
`substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding[.]6
`
`The Code of Judicial Conduct defines “third degree of relationship calculated
`according to the civil law system” to include a judicial officer’s brother.7 Where
`disqualification is sought under Rule 2.11(A)(2)(c), the standard is objective, any
`subjective belief of impartiality “is irrelevant,” and the Court will undertake only
`an objective inquiry.8
`
`For purposes of this motion, I will assume the motion is correct that Special
`
`Master Amato has a brother who works in the entertainment industry in
`Hollywood, California. (The motion does no more than point out that the two
`share a surname.) It is difficult to imagine how Special Master Amato’s report and
`recommendation on an AMC stockholder’s objection, letter of support, or motion
`could “substantially affect[]” any interest her brother may have as an editor.9 I can
`envision no set of circumstances in which any of Special Master Amato’s reports
`or recommendations could so anger Hollywood’s entertainment industry that it
`would blacklist or otherwise retaliate against her brother. Disqualification is not
`warranted under Rule 2.11(A)(2)(c).
`
`The second motion alleges Special Master Amato may not be impartial with
`regard to Mark Lebovitch, Esq., of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
`who has entered his appearance on behalf of plaintiffs in this case. The motion
`asserts Special Master Amato and Mr. Lebovitch worked together on In re Globe
`
`6 Code Jud. Con. R. 2.11.
`
`
`
`7 Id. at 8.
`
`8 See Los v. Los, 595 A.2d 381, 384 (Del. 1991).
`
`9 Code Jud. Con. R. 2.11.
`
`

`

`In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
`Consol. Civil Action No. 2023-0215-MTZ
`May 10, 2023
`Page 3 of 4
`
`Specialty Metals, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10865-VCG (Del. Ch.). A
`review of that docket indicates that indeed, Special Master Amato’s firm and Mr.
`Lebovitch’s firm served as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in that case, and both
`Special Master Amato and Mr. Lebovitch entered appearances. The case
`concluded when Vice Chancellor Glasscock approved a final settlement in
`February 2016. The motion states that Special Master Amato’s co-representation
`of lead plaintiffs with Mr. Lebovitch in that matter, which concluded nearly seven
`years ago, “raises reasonable questions regarding her impartiality.”10 I interpret the
`motion as seeking disqualification under Rule 2.11(A)(1).
`
`the standard where one seeks
`Our Supreme Court has set forth
`disqualification of a judicial officer under Rule 2.11(A)(1):
`
`[T]he judge must engage in a two-part analysis to determine if recusal
`is warranted. First, the judge must determine whether she is
`subjectively satisfied that she can hear the case free of bias or
`prejudice concerning the party seeking recusal. Second, “even if the
`judge believes that he or she is free of bias or prejudice, the judge
`must objectively examine whether the circumstances require recusal
`because ‘there is an appearance of bias sufficient to cause doubt as to
`the judge’s impartiality.’”11
`
`Special Master Amato’s past representation in In re Globe Specialty Metals
`does not give rise to an objective appearance of bias in favor of Mr. Lebovitch or
`his clients. Serving as co-lead counsel in a case nearly seven years ago creates no
`logical concern that Special Master Amato would favor Mr. Lebovitch or his
`clients in her recommendations in this matter. The fact that the movant “has no
`way of knowing if both parties have been communicating outside this court”12 does
`not change that result. One could say this of any judicial officer and any other
`person, but absent any reason to think such communications exist and that such
`communications are of such a nature that would create or reflect a bias, this
`unknown does not contribute to the objective appearance of bias.
`
`10 D.I. 241 ¶ 4.
`
`
`
`11 Meso Scale Diagnostics, 247 A.3d at 242 (quoting Stevenson v. State, 782 A.2d 249,
`255 (Del. 2001)).
`
`12 D.I. 241 ¶ 4.
`
`

`

`In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
`Consol. Civil Action No. 2023-0215-MTZ
`May 10, 2023
`Page 4 of 4
`
`
`While it is clear this second motion does not point to an objective
`appearance of bias, I cannot conduct the subjective analysis required by our case
`law interpreting Rule 2.11(A)(1), namely whether Special Master Amato believes
`she can “hear the case free of bias or prejudice.”13 I ask that Special Master Amato
`submit an affidavit regarding her subjective belief as to whether she may resolve
`motions in this case free of bias in light of her service alongside Mr. Lebovitch in
`the In re Globe Specialty Metals matter. If, upon reviewing that affidavit, I am
`satisfied that Special Master Amato undertook the subjective analysis required by
`our law, I will deny the second motion.14
`
`No further briefing is required on these motions. I appreciate your interest
`in this matter and your desire for an impartial Special Master. I believe the
`concerns raised in the first motion are unfounded, and so that motion is denied. IT
`IS SO ORDERED. I believe the second motion fails to raise any objective
`concern as to Special Master Amato’s impartiality. But because I cannot
`determine whether disqualification is appropriate under Rule 2.11(A)(1) absent a
`subjective analysis of bias or prejudice, I reserve judgment on that motion until
`Special Master Amato submits an affidavit to the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ Morgan T. Zurn
`
`Vice Chancellor
`
`
`
`MTZ/ms
`
`cc: All Counsel of Record, via File & ServeXpress
`
`
`
`13 Meso Scale, 247 A.3d at 242.
`
`14 See Los, 595 A.2d at 385 (“On appeal of the judge’s recusal decision, the reviewing
`court must be satisfied that the trial judge engaged in the subjective test and will review
`the merits of the objective test.”).
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket