## Facts

- A minor plaintiff brought a diversity action alleging her image was obtained through coercion and used in “Girls Gone Wild” video products and advertising without lawful consent.
- The district court ordered the parties to participate in mediation under the court’s case-management authority and local procedures.
- At the mediation, defendant Joe Francis arrived about four hours late, behaved disrespectfully (including placing bare feet on the table), and repeatedly declared he would not pay or settle.
- During the session, Francis stated he attended only because the court required it and indicated he would not participate meaningfully.
- As plaintiff’s counsel attempted to leave, Francis threatened counsel and charged toward him in a manner suggesting an imminent physical assault; Francis’s own attorney intervened to prevent an altercation.
- The court conducted a contempt hearing, found Francis in contempt for violating the mediation order’s good-faith participation requirement, and imposed coercive incarceration, concluding monetary sanctions would be ineffective.
- Francis moved to disqualify or recuse the presiding judge, arguing the contempt ruling and incarceration sanction reflected bias and improper pressure to settle.

## Issues

1. Whether the judge’s contempt finding and coercive incarceration sanction for bad-faith mediation conduct created actual bias or an appearance of partiality requiring disqualification or recusal.
2. Whether requiring good-faith participation in mediation, and enforcing that requirement through contempt, amounted to improper coercion to settle supporting recusal.

## Decision

- The court denied Francis’s motion to disqualify or recuse.
- The court held that the contempt ruling and sanction, based on Francis’s conduct in a court-ordered proceeding, did not establish personal bias or a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality.
- The court rejected the claim that it compelled settlement, explaining the obligation was to participate in mediation in good faith, not to agree to any settlement.

## Legal Principles

- Recusal is not warranted solely because a party is dissatisfied with adverse rulings or sanctions; judicial actions taken in managing proceedings ordinarily do not show disqualifying bias.
- A judge may require parties to participate in mediation in good faith and may enforce compliance through contempt remedies when necessary to protect the integrity of court-ordered processes.
- Coercive civil contempt sanctions are permissible to induce compliance with a court order when lesser measures (including monetary sanctions) are found inadequate.
- The relevant recusal standard is objective: whether an informed, reasonable observer would question the judge’s impartiality based on the record.

## Conclusion

The court kept the case, concluding that sanctions imposed for extreme, disruptive misconduct during court-ordered mediation reflected enforcement of procedural obligations rather than personal prejudice or improper pressure to settle.


Pitts v. Francis, No. 5:07-cv-00169, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93047 (N.D. Fla. 2007)