Cyrus Sanai v. D. Joshua Staub et al

Filing 12

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL (Dkt. 8 , filed March 15, 2018) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Sanai fails to allege specific facts showing that a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would perceive a significant risk that Judge Klausner will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits. The Court therefore DENIES Sanai's request for disqualification of Judge Klausner. (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2:18-cv-02136-RGK(Ex)
Date
CYRUS SANAI v. D. JOSHUA STAUB ET AL.

‘O’
March 16, 2018

Present: The Honorable 
Catherine Jeang 
Deputy Clerk 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 

N/A 

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

Not Present 
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 

Not Present 
Not Present 
(IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
Proceedings:  
FOR RECUSAL (Dkt. 8, filed March 15, 2018)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Cyrus Sanai moves to disqualify the Honorable R. Gary Klausner in the
matter of Cyrus Sanai v. D. Joshua Staub et al, No. 2:18-cv-02136-RGK-E. Dkt. 8
(“Motion”). Sanai moves for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455. The case before Judge
Klausner concerns Sanai’s request for declaratory judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). In particular, Sanai requests declaratory judgment that Sanai has the
“right to attack” Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark A. Borenstein’s orders
and his conduct in certain contempt proceedings against Sanai, on the grounds that Judge
Borenstein lacks impartiality under Cal. Code Civ. P. § 170.1 et seq. See Compl.
II.

DISCUSSION

Section 455(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides a broad, fact-driven
rule for disqualification: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The Ninth Circuit employs an objective test in
analyzing § 455(a) disqualification motions: “whether a reasonable person with
knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably
be questioned.” Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178
(9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Herrington v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488, 1502 (9th Cir.
1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, section 455 provides that the judge
shall disqualify himself where the judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1).

CV-2136 (03/18)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 4 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2:18-cv-02136-RGK(Ex)
Date
CYRUS SANAI v. D. JOSHUA STAUB ET AL.

‘O’
March 16, 2018

Sanai moves to disqualify Judge Klausner because of Judge Klausner’s purported
familiarity with a defendant in Sanai’s underlying complaint, Frederick Bennett. Motion
at 2. In particular, Sanai asserts that Bennett was Court Counsel of the Los Angeles
County Superior Court from 1998 to date, and was former County Counsel who
represented the Los Angeles Superior Court through 2002. Id. Because Judge Klausner
was a Los Angeles Superior Court judge through 2002, Sanai contends that “Judge
Klausner therefore knew and may still know Mr. Bennett, and he has knowledge of the
facts concerning Mr. Bennett’s role in the Superior Court” as detailed in the complaint’s
allegations. Id. In particular, Sanai argues that Judge Klausner employed Bennett “to
defend a ruling he made” as a presiding judge in an unpublished case, Infant &
Nutritional Prod., Inc. v. Superior Court, No. B154321, 2002 WL 343393, at *1 (Cal. Ct.
App. Mar. 6, 2002). Sanai also contends that Bennett was involved as Assistant County
Counsel in a peremptory disqualification decision where “Judge Klausner played a key
role.” See People v. Superior Court (Lavi), 4 Cal. 4th 1164, 847 P.2d 1031 (1993), as
modified (May 13, 1993). Sanai asserts that these cases demonstrate that it is “clear that
Judge Klausner had a strong professional relationship with Bennett from matters in the
public record.” Motion at 4. He further contends that Judge Klausner’s prior judgeship
means that he has “actual knowledge” of the disputed facts regarding the complaint’s
allegations that Bennett, as Court Counsel, would “ghost write standard responses”
regarding motions for disqualification. Id. at 5.
The Court has reviewed the two cited cases. The first cited case, Infant &
Nutritional Products, Inc. v. Superior Court, concerned whether a party could properly
file a seemingly untimely motion for disqualification in a Los Angeles Superior Court
case that had been returned to a previously assigned trial judge. The underlying case had
been assigned to Judge Ray L. Hart and then temporarily transferred between three
different Los Angeles County Superior Court judges—none of whom were Judge
Klausner—and then reassigned back to Judge Hart. Bennett was counsel for the Superior
Court in that case, which was the respondent to a writ of mandate in the proceedings.
The court of appeal held that the motion for disqualification was untimely, and ordered
proceedings to continue before Judge Hart. 2002 WL 343393, at *7.
The second cited case, People v. Superior Court, involved a Los Angeles Superior
Court case transferred to the criminal master calendar department before Judge Klausner.
4 Cal.4th 1164 at 1170. In the parties’ first appearance before Judge Klausner, he
transferred the case to another department before Judge Trammel. Id. After the case was
transferred, the government filed a motion to disqualify Judge Trammel. Id. at 1171.

CV-2136 (03/18)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 2 of 4 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2:18-cv-02136-RGK(Ex)
Date
CYRUS SANAI v. D. JOSHUA STAUB ET AL.

‘O’
March 16, 2018

The issue before the California Supreme Court was whether the government’s motion to
disqualify was timely under Cal. Code Civ. P. § 170.6. The court ruled that the motion
was timely. 4 Cal.4th 1164 at 1186.
Sanai has not shown that Judge Klausner’s previous service as a Los Angeles
Superior Court judge or his purported “affiliation” with Bennett is a proper basis for
recusal. The mere fact that Judge Klausner served as a judge of the Los Angeles Superior
Court at the time Bennett defended motions to disqualify does not demonstrate Judge
Klausner’s alleged personal bias or prejudice concerning Bennett, and does not establish
Judge Klausner’s personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
allegations in Sanai’s complaint. This conclusion is particularly warranted insofar as the
above-cited cases do not involve Judge Klausner in any meaningful way, and insofar as
they do not suggest that Bennett represented Judge Klausner in any disqualification
proceedings.1 Sanai’s vague and conclusory allegations regarding Judge Klausner’s
relationship to Bennett and knowledge of Bennett’s approach to defending
disqualification motions fail to demonstrate that Judge Klausner’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned. Sanai speculates, but does not offer evidence, that Judge
Klausner has a strong professional relationship with Bennett. Sanai fails to allege
specific facts showing that a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would
perceive a significant risk that Judge Klausner will resolve the case on a basis other than
the merits.
The Court therefore DENIES Sanai’s request for disqualification of Judge
Klausner.

1

Sanai cites two additional cases in supplemental briefing filed on March 16, 2018.
Dkt. 11. The Court has reviewed Jones v. Superior Court (People), 9 Cal. App. 4th 1648,
12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 376 (1992), and Gossai v. Soto, No. B192332, 2007 WL 2121213, at *1
(Cal. Ct. App. July 25, 2007). These cases provide no additional grounds for recusal.
Bennett was counsel for respondent Los Angeles Superior Court in Jones, and Judge
Klausner’s involvement in that case appears limited to providing a declaration regarding
administrative changes designed to speed up the criminal trial process in the Los Angeles
Superior Court system. It does not appear that Bennett was involved in any manner in
Gossai.

CV-2136 (03/18)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 3 of 4 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2:18-cv-02136-RGK(Ex)
Date
CYRUS SANAI v. D. JOSHUA STAUB ET AL.

‘O’
March 16, 2018

V.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES Sanai’s request for
disqualification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

CV-2136 (03/18)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

: 
00 
                      CMJ 

00 

Page 4 of 4