In re: Specht

Dist. Ct. erred under 28 USC section 455(a) in ruling on motion to add three additional defendants to trademark infringement lawsuit where Dist. Ct. owned stock in one of said defendants, and where Dist. Ct.'s wife was on said defendant's board of directors since Dist. Ct.'s denial of said motion gave appearance of impropriety. Instead, Dist. Ct. should have referred motion to another Dist. Ct. Judge for ruling. However, mandamus relief was not required to remand matter for new ruling on motion to add defendants where said motion was clearly without merit given fact that plaintiff, if successful in underlying claim, would obtain any relief from different defendant(s).