In re: PACIFIC THOMAS CORPORATION v. KYLE EVERETT, Chapter 11 Trustee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PACIFIC THOMAS
CORPORATION,
Debtor,
______________________________
RANDALL C.M. WHITNEY,
Appellant,
v.
KYLE EVERETT, Chapter 11 Trustee,
Appellee.
No. 21-16923
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-03385-MMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2023**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Randall Whitney appeals pro se from two orders entered by the bankruptcy
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
court and affirmed by the district court. Because the facts are known to the parties,
we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.
I
Whitney argues that the bankruptcy court was required to grant his motion
for disqualification. First, Whitney argues that the cumulative effect of several
adverse rulings demonstrated a “pervasive bias” against him. Rarely are judicial
decisions, on their own, sufficient to establish bias or partiality. Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Appeal, not disqualification, is the proper
avenue. Id. Whitney’s list of adverse decisions does not demonstrate a “deep-
seated . . . antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id.
Second, the bankruptcy court was not required to grant Whitney’s motion to
disqualify for attending a legal conference. Federal judges are permitted to engage
in “law-related pursuits” and to “lecture . . . on both law-related and nonlegal
subjects.” Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, Canon 4. Whitney argues that a
judge’s presence at a legal conference with another party or that party’s counsel
creates an impermissible opportunity for ex parte communication. Whitney does
not suggest that any ex parte communication occurred in this case, however.
Under the circumstances, the bankruptcy court’s impartiality could not reasonably
be questioned. United States v. Carey, 929 F.3d 1092, 1104 (9th Cir. 2019).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Whitney’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
motion for disqualification.
II
Defendants must have standing to present arguments to a federal court.
Arizonans for Off. Eng. v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997). Standing must be
analyzed for each claim and remedy sought. Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 734
(2008). Whitney’s standing to defend against an injunction against himself is not
sufficient to permit standing to defend against a turnover award against Pacific
Thomas Trading Ventures (“PTV”). The only issue before the bankruptcy court
when Whitney filed his motion in limine was the amount of the turnover from PTV
to Pacific Thomas Corporation (“PTC”). Whitney’s interest in defending against
an injunction is not relevant to that determination. Whitney did not have standing
to move to exclude evidence regarding PTV’s liability. See Valley Forge Christian
Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464, 474 (1982)
(parties must assert their own interests, not the interests of others).
AFFIRMED. All pending motions are DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --