UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

TODD & SARGENT INC ET AL CASE NO. 2:24-CV-01397

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

I F G PORT HOLDINGS L L C MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

MEMORANDUM ORDER A judge is only required to recuse himself in proceedings “in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

(a) (emphasis added). A reviewing court asks how the facts “would appear to a ‘well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer, rather than the hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious person.’” Sensley v. Albritton,

(5th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Jordan,

(5th Cir. 1995)). At the outset the court notes that movant IFG Port Holdings, LLC (“IFG”) is represented by different counsel in these proceedings from those who filed the original recusal motion of another judge, giving rise to the comments at issue. The undersigned’s brief reaction to the alleged factual basis of a motion that was not pending before him is easily distinguished from the cases on which IFG relies, in which judges offered comments on matters directly involved in their cases. See United States v. Cooley,

(10th Cir. 1993); In re Boston’s Children First,

(1st Cir. 2001). As the First Circuit emphasized, § 455(a) “must not be read to create a threshold for recusal so low as to make any out-of-court response to a reporter’s question the basis for a motion to recuse.” In Re Boston’s Children First,

. There is no basis under § 455(a) or (b)(1) to find that these circumstances have called into question the undersigned’s partiality against IFG as a civil litigant or otherwise prejudiced the undersigned. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Recusal [doc. 23] be DENIED. THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on the 24th day of January, 2025. . = JAMES D. CAIN JR. C . UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2