In Re Nazie Azam

Filing 28

MINUTES by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Appellant Nazie Azam's Motion to Disqualify Judge Staton (No. 8:14-cv-00074-JLS, dkt. 20 , filed on 11/18/2016); Appellant Nazie Azam's Motion to Disqualify Judge Staton (No. 8:13-cv-01954-JLS, dkt. 15, filed on 11/18/2016). The Court DENIES Azam's requests for disqualification and intercircuit assignment 20 . To the extent that the motions raise issues unrelated to disqualification and intercircuit assignment, the Court declines to deter mine the merits of those issues. Azam is admonished not to bring further motions seeking reconsideration of the court's prior orders. In the event Azam persists in bringing these motions, the Court will entertain requests for sanctions and other non-monetary relief. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
8:14-cv-00074-JLS
Date
8:13-cv-01954-JLS
IN RE NAZIE AZAM

O

December 2, 2016

Present: The Honorable 
CONNIE LEE 
Deputy Clerk 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 
Proceedings:  

N/A 

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

Not Present 
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A 
N/A 
Appellant Nazie Azam’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Staton (No.
8:14-cv-00074-JLS, dkt. 20, filed on November 18, 2016)
Appellant Nazie Azam’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Staton (No.
8:13-cv-01954-JLS, dkt. 15, filed on November 18, 2016)

The Court finds these motions appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of
December 23, 2016 is vacated, and the matters are hereby taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION

On November 18, 2016, Nazie Azam filed a “Motion to Vacate, for
Disqualification and Intercircuit Assignment, and for Other Relief.” In Re Nazie Azam,
No. 8:14-cv-00074-JLS, dkt. 20 (“Case 1 Mtn.”). The motion, among other things, seeks
disqualification of Judge Josephine L. Staton, the District Court Judge assigned to the
instant cases. Azam moves for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Also on November 18, 2016, Azam filed an identical motion in the matter of In Re
Nazie Azam, No. 8:13-cv-01954-JLS, dkt. 15 (“Case 2 Mtn.”). Both cases before Judge
Staton arise from Azam’s appeals of orders issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Central District of California in relation to Azam’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.
Azam has provided a voluminous record and the allegations in the related cases are
lengthy. To the extent that specific arguments are not discussed in more detail, the Court
found such discussion unnecessary.

CV-74, CV-1954 (12/16)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 4 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
8:14-cv-00074-JLS
Date
8:13-cv-01954-JLS
IN RE NAZIE AZAM

O

December 2, 2016

II.

DISCUSSION

Azam has contested the foreclosure on her residential property at 18 Dorchester
Green, Laguna Niguel, California in state court, in multiple federal actions, and in
bankruptcy court. Over the course of this litigation, Azam has filed several motions to
disqualify Judge Staton in the related cases. Indeed, in a prior motion to disqualify Judge
Staton, the court noted:
This is not the only case Azam and [her counsel] Ringgold have filed seeking relief
from the foreclosure on Azam’s home in Laguna Niguel. (See, e.g., SACV 151786 CJC (DFMx); SACV 15-1786 CJC (DFMx); SACV 15-0017 AG (DFMx).)
Nor is this Motion their first motion to disqualify [] the judge assigned to those
cases. (See SACV 15-1786 CJC (DFMx), Dkt. No. 21 (Motion to Disqualify
Judge Cormac J. Carney); SACV 12-1732 JLS (MLGx), Dkt. No. 63 (Motion to
Disqualify Judge Staton); SACV 15-0017 AG (DFMx), Dkt. Nos. 145, 147
(Motion to Disqualify Judge Andrew J. Guilford).) Indeed, this pending Motion
requesting disqualification is not even Azam and Ringgold’s first motion to
disqualify Judge Staton in this case. (Dkt. No. 22 (Motion to Disqualify Judge
Staton).).
Nazie Azam v. FDIC et al., No. 15-3930-JLS-AS (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2016) dkt. 94 at 2
(“Judge Guilford’s Order”).
In the instant motions, Azam seeks to disqualify Judge Staton because “Judge
Staton has direct general and financial interests in the case and related cases.” Case 1
Mtn. at 1; Case 2 Mtn. at 1. Azam argues that Judge Staton’s bias “stems from extra
judicial sources outside the case” and that Judge Staton has a “financial interest the class
action of which appellant is a party.” Case 1 Mtn. at 4; Case 2 Mtn. at 4. In addition,
Azam contends that Judge Staton disqualified herself because “she was sitting as both a
court of review when she rendered decisions as a trier of fact in the underlying cases.”
Case 1 Mtn. at 3; Case 2 Mtn. at 3. Azam also states: “Given the fact the majority of the
district court judges in this court have the same disqualifying interest the case should be
assigned under the procedures of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 292 (d).” Case 1 Mtn. at 4; Case 2 Mtn.
at 4.

CV-74, CV-1954 (12/16)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 2 of 4 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
8:14-cv-00074-JLS
Date
8:13-cv-01954-JLS
IN RE NAZIE AZAM

O

December 2, 2016

Azam’s vague allegations appear to refer to an argument that Azam has made in
prior motions to disqualify Judge Staton. For example, in a prior order on a similar
disqualification motion, the court explained:
The claimed basis for disqualification [was] Judge Staton’s previous service
as a judge on the Superior Court of Orange County. The motion claims that
Superior Court judges in Orange County receive supplemental compensation
from the county, which Judge Staton has received and may continue to
receive. This allegedly gives Judge Staton a financial interest in another
case that Plaintiff’s counsel filed in which Azam is a member of the putative
class. The case is Law Offices of Nina Ringgold and All Current Clients
Thereof v. Jerry Brown et al., 12-cv-717 (E.D. Cal.). Azam refers to this as
the “VRA Case.”
Nazie Azam v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., No. 8:12-cv-01732-JLS-MLG (C.D. Cal.
June 19, 2014) dkt. 74 at 2 (“Judge Carter’s Order”). Three judges have determined that
Ringgold (or the VRA Case) is entirely unrelated to Azam’s foreclosure disputes and to
Judge Staton’s adjudication of Azam’s appeals from bankruptcy court orders. See, e.g.,
id. at 6 (“[E]ven if the Court were to credit Azam’s allegations and to presume that Judge
Staton had some form of ‘interest’ in the determination of the VRA Case allegations,
there is no actual connection between those allegations and any of the cases Judge Staton
has resolved. Nor is there any connection to the instant case.”); Nazie Azam v. FDIC et
al., No. 15-3930-JLS-AS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2105) dkt. 32 at 3 (“Judge Selna’s Order”)
(“[T]here is no substantive relationship between the present action and Ringgold.”);
Judge Guilford’s Order at 4 (approving of Judge Selna’s finding that Azam’s arguments
for disqualification were without merit).
The Court agrees with a prior order addressing Azam’s recurring motions for
disqualification and characterizes Azam’s pending requests as motions for
reconsideration, as they raise the same arguments previously raised in earlier motions to
disqualify Judge Staton. See Judge Guilford’s Order at 3. Local Rule 7-18 sets forth the
bases upon which this Court may reconsider a previous order. Rule 7-18 provides as
follows:
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

CV-74, CV-1954 (12/16)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 3 of 4 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
8:14-cv-00074-JLS
Date
8:13-cv-01954-JLS
IN RE NAZIE AZAM

O

December 2, 2016

presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise or reasonable
diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration
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.
L.R. 7-18. The Court concludes that Azam has failed to assert any new grounds for the
disqualification of Judge Staton. As a result, Azam has failed to convince the Court that
it should reconsider Judge Selna, Judge Carter, and Judge Guilford’s determinations that
Judge Staton is not disqualified from hearing matters related to Azam, the foreclosed
property, and Azam’s bankruptcy. The Court therefore DENIES Azam’s motions for the
disqualification of Judge Staton.
Azam also seeks an “intercircuit assignment” of her bankruptcy appeals before
Judge Staton, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292(d). Case 1 Mtn. at 4; Case 2 Mtn. at 4. That
provision of the U.S. Code relates to the Chief Justice’s temporary assignment of district
judges when “the need arises.” See 28 U.S.C. § 292(d). The provision does not allow a
party to request that a judge in another circuit determine a disqualification motion. Nor
does it give this Court the authority to assign the disqualification motion to another judge
on its own. The Court therefore DENIES Azam’s request for intercircuit assignment.
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES Azam’s requests for
disqualification and intercircuit assignment. To the extent that the motions raise issues
unrelated to disqualification and intercircuit assignment, the Court declines to determine
the merits of those issues. Azam is admonished not to bring further motions seeking
reconsideration of the court’s prior orders. In the event Azam persists in bringing these
motions, the Court will entertain requests for sanctions and other non-monetary relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00 
Initials of Preparer

CV-74, CV-1954 (12/16)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

: 

00 

CL 

Page 4 of 4