Lawyer: LV judge showed partiality

A California lawyer claims a Las Vegas judge has exhibited bias in a discrimination case and should disqualify himself from making future decisions related to the federal lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Kent Dawson ordered a new trial last year in the case of Las Vegas physician Raafat Mohammadkhani, who was awarded $310,000 after she accused University Medical Center of discrimination and retaliation. The trial is scheduled for Aug. 27.

“Everyone who attended the first trial in this matter believes that the court showed partiality during the trial,” according to a motion filed earlier this month by Mohammadkhani’s attorney, Randall Rumph.

Two jurors signed declarations in support of Rumph’s motion to disqualify Dawson. Rumph is a former Las Vegas lawyer who now is based in Bakersfield, Calif.

“During the trial, Judge Dawson was clearly one-sided and aligned with the defendants,” according to the declaration of juror Jeanne Hinners. “We as jurors commented about this after the trial, and we felt the judge was helping defendants in every way he could, especially with his rulings on evidence and objections.”

Juror Rosemary Hyson made a similar contention in her statement. According to Rumph’s motion, defense counsel also noticed a disparity in the way Dawson had treated the attorneys during the trial.

“In fact, the harsh treatment by the court to Rumph during the trial was one of the reasons given by defense counsel for defendant not entering into any negotiations for settlement … because defendants were confident (from the conduct of the court) that the court would indeed overturn the verdict,” Rumph wrote.

Dawson primarily based his decision to grant a new trial in the case on a juror’s “belated disclosure” that his wife previously had filed a discrimination complaint against her employer. The juror, Paulino Derige, disclosed the information on the second day of the November 2005 trial.

“By then, the damage had already been done,” Dawson wrote.

According to Dawson’s order, the judge would have replaced Derige if he had made the disclosure during jury selection, when “the court specifically inquired whether any of the jury panel or a member of his or her immediate family had filed a claim for discrimination.”

By the time Derige shared the information about his wife’s complaint, according to the order, “the trial was well under way and the court had concerns regarding the conduct of other members of the jury.”

After a two-week trial, the jury ruled in favor of Mohammadkhani, who claimed she suffered discrimination while working as a staff physician at UMC’s quick care center on Craig Road.

Rumph’s motion accuses Dawson of leaving Derige on the jury to create a situation that ensured a defense victory “no matter what the jury verdict.”

“There is no other explanation for this court failing to remove a juror when defendants so requested, allowing that juror to deliberate, then wiping out a verdict based upon the juror actually deliberating,” the lawyer wrote.

The motion also claims Dawson displayed bias when he “refused to meet and thank the jurors for their deliberations in the case.”

In his order granting a new trial in the case, Dawson concluded that the punitive damage award of $50,000 against Dr. James Anthony, medical director at the Craig Road center, and the $250,000 damage award against defendant UMC are “strong indicators that the jury allowed passion and prejudice to affect their decision.”