Whether the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Div. 3 justices should have recused themselves from the appeal of a judgment against the petitioners, given that the petitioners had sued the ADR company where the justices routinely retired post-bench, as well as the co-founder of the ADR company who was also the first and founding Div. 3 Presiding Justice

QUESTION PRESENTED The Justices of the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Div. 3 refused to recuse themselves from the appeal of a judgment against Petitioners in which they lost their homes and were saddled with six figure obligations for supposed unpaid rent. The Judgment came about in a scenario where, during the litigation, Petitioners had sued the ADR company where Div. 3 Justices have routinely retired post bench to a lucrative employment as a “neutral.” Petitioners also sued the co-founder of the ADR company, who was also the first and founding Div. 3 Presiding Justice. In addition, based on alleged unlawful acts and rulings by the trial court judge and the appellate justices, Petitioners sued two (2) of the Div. 3 appellate justices who despite having been sued by Petitioners, and although the federal lawsuit was later dismissed without prejudice, entered and made rulings and wrote the Opinion in Petitioners’ appeal. (