Cyrus Sanai v. D. Joshua Staub et al

Filing 15

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: THE COURT DENIES PLAINTIFFS SECOND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 . (lc)

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 20, 2018

Present: The Honorable 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 

N/A 

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

Not Present 

Not Present

Catherine Jeang 
Deputy Clerk 

Proceedings:  

Not Present 
Court Reporter / Recorder

(IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF’S SECOND EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (Dkt. 13, filed March 18, 2018)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Cyrus Sanai moves the Court to reconsider its March 16, 2018 order
denying the requested recusal of 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. 13 (“Motion”). Sanai
moves again for recusal under 28 U.S.C. section 455 and requests reconsideration under
Local Rule 7–18.
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

Local Rule 7–18 sets forth the grounds upon which the Court may reconsider the
decision on any motion:
A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made
only on the grounds of: (a) a material difference in fact or law from that
presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable
diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration

CV-2136 (03/18)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 3 

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 20, 2018

at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a
change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest
showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before
such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any
oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original
motion.
C.D. Cal. L.R. 7–18.
In support of his request for reconsideration, Sanai contends that he searched the
Pacer system after the March 16, 2018 order for cases involving Judge Klausner. Motion
at 5. Sanai states that “[w]hen he did so again, he accidentally put in a different search
name, looking for ‘Gary Klausner’ instead of ‘Robert Gary Klausner.’ This accident
proved fortuitous, because there are at least three federal proceedings in which Judge
Klausner, while a Superior Court judge, was sued in [federal] court, but under the name
‘Gary Klausner.’ ” Id. Sanai attaches copies of the docket sheets from these three cases
and contends that these cases demonstrate that Frederick Bennett represented Judge
Klausner personally.1 Id. Upon review of the docket sheets for these federal
proceedings, it appears that Frederick Bennett represented Judge Klausner and numerous
other judicial officers of the Los Angeles County Superior Court in three multi-defendant
federal proceedings. See Dkt. 13 & Exs. A, B, C.
Sanai contends that the instant motion relies on different factual grounds than the
original motion to disqualify Judge Klausner, so this is “arguably [] not a motion for
reconsideration.” Id. at 5–6. Sanai further contends that even if the instant motion is a
motion for reconsideration, 28 U.S.C. section 455(e) “does not permit waiver of a
grounds of disqualification except under strict conditions,” and that “no waiver of the
right to disqualify [Judge Klausner] can have occurred based on the relationship until full
disclosure is made” regarding Judge Klausner’s relationship to Bennett. Id. at 6. Sanai
argues that restrictions on reconsideration set forth in Local Rule 7–18 are “overridden”
by 28 U.S.C. section 455(e).

1

Sanai seeks to disqualify Judge Klausner because of Judge Klausner’s purported
familiarity with Bennett, who is named as a defendant in Sanai’s underlying complaint.
Dkt. 8 at 2. 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.

CV-2136 (03/18)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 2 of 3 

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 20, 2018

Last, Sanai asserts that this motion also satisfies the standard for reconsideration
insofar as reasonable diligence—“a search of Pacer in the Central District and Ninth
Circuit under Judge Klausner’s true name”—did not yield any lawsuits in which Judge
“Robert Gary Klausner” was sued. Id. at 6. Sanai also contends that this Court’s March
16, 2018 order “constituted new facts and new law.” Id.
It appears that Sanai’s request for recusal generally repeats the arguments made in
support of his March 15, 2018 request for recusal. In order to obtain recusal of Judge
Klausner in the first instance, Sanai was obligated to point to some extrajudicial source of
bias—such as a personal bias. See United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1454 (9th
Cir. 1997). The Court concluded that Sanai failed to demonstrate that Judge Klausner’s
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and here, the Court finds that Sanai fails to
demonstrate grounds for reconsideration of this conclusion. Exercise of reasonable
diligence could have revealed the three federal proceedings involving Judge Klausner
that Sanai contends he inadvertently discovered, particularly because Sanai’s search
terms merely included what Sanai argues is part of Judge Klausner’s “true name.”
Moreover, plaintiff does not allege the emergence of new material facts or a change of
law occurring since March 16, 2018, or a manifest showing of failure to consider material
facts before the Court. Given these circumstances, and because reconsideration is an
extraordinary remedy that should not be granted absent highly unusual circumstances,2
the Court DENIES Sanai’s request for reconsideration.
III.

CONCLUSION

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

: 
00 
                     CMJ 

00 

2

See 398 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).

CV-2136 (03/18)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 3 of 3