Anderson v. American Airlines, Inc.

Filing 153

ORDER REFERRING SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TO ASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE FOR REASSIGNMENT re 148 MOTION to Vacate filed by Edward E. Anderson, 146 Letter filed by Edward E. Anderson. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 8, 2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit April 1 Letter from Attorney Roesti, # 2 Exhibit Order re April 1 Letter from Attorney Roesti)(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2011)

Anderson v. American Airlines, Inc.

Doc. 153

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 EDWARD E. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. / Early in this action, plaintiff filed an affidavit seeking to disqualify the undersigned judge (Dkt. No. 39). The affidavit was referred to Judge Breyer, who denied plaintiff's request for disqualification (Dkt. No. 48). The action proceeded before the undersigned judge. On March 9, defendant's motion for summary judgment on call claims was granted, and judgment was entered. On April 1, attorney Frederick Roesti filed a letter on plaintiff's behalf, renewing the request for disqualification. The letter accused the undersigned judge of racial prejudice against African Americans, personal bias against Attorney Roesti, and a conflict of interest regarding American Airlines. The letter urged that "the honorable thing to do is to disqualify yourself" and "invite[d] the court to vacate the judgment sua sponte" (Dkt. No. 146 at 1­2). On April 4, an order was issued stating that no action would be taken on the April 1 letter and that a proper motion should be made in proper form. On April 6, Attorney Roesti timely filed a motion to vacate judgment that incorporated his April 1 letter by reference. The motion argues that the undersigned judge committed legal and ORDER REFERRING SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TO ASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE FOR REASSIGNMENT No. C 08-04195 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

factual errors as a result of the supposed improper motives described in the April 1 letter (Dkt. No. 149 at 26). In light of the arguments made by Attorney Roesti, the pending motion to vacate judgment will be treated as a second motion for disqualification. Attorney Roesti's second motion to disqualify the undersigned judge is hereby REFERRED to the Assignment Committee so that it might be handled by another judge. Due to Attorney Roesti's continued difficulty using the electronic case filing system, the motion is comprised of multiple filings at Dkt. Nos. 148­52. For completeness of the record, Attorney Roesti's April 1 letter and the order thereon are appended hereto. Only the motion to disqualify need be reassigned. The rest of the case will stay with the undersigned judge unless there is a need for recusal. If the motion to disqualify is denied, then the undersigned judge will proceed to decide the Rule 59 aspects of the pending motion.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Dated: April 8, 2011. IT IS SO ORDERED.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE