Brosnahan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying 56 Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate ; denying 56 Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 11/16/10.(TLJ)

Download PDF
Brosnahan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank et al Doc. 60 1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff Michael Brosnahan filed a Motion to Vacate and Motion to Recuse (Doc. 56) on November 5, 2010. Plaintiff claims that the undersigned is personally biased against him and has financial interest in this action and therefore should recuse himself. Plaintiff further claims that because the undersigned has been acting with bias, all his prior rulings should be vacated. The Court construes Plaintiff's Motion as a motion to recuse for bias or prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144. But because Plaintiff has not submitted a sufficient affidavit, the Court does not need to stay this case and assign another judge to decide the issue. Plaintiff obviously strongly disagrees with the undersigned's prior rulings in this case. But the fact that the rulings did not go Plaintiff's way does not demonstrate that the undersigned has a personal bias against Plaintiff. Nor has Plaintiff shown how the undersigned 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Michael J. Brosnahan, Plaintiff, v. J P M o r g a n Chase Bank, Washington Mutual Bank, Reconveyance Company, Defendants. formerly California No. CV 09-08224-PCT-JAT ORDER 1 has a financial interest in any of the Defendants. The Court finds that none of the grounds for 2 disqualification listed in 28 U.S.C. 455 exists and that Plaintiff has not given any adequate 3 reasons for vacating the prior rulings in this case. 4 5 6 56). 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate and Motion to Recuse (Doc. DATED this 16th day of November, 2010.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?