Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation et al

Filing 58

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 54 Motion to Disqualify Judge. Case remains before Judge Alsup. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DI
D
ISTRICT COU
URT

7

NORTHER DISTRICT OF CALIFO
RN
T
ORNIA

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

MIC
CHAEL A. BRUZZONE,
R
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15

C
Case No.: 14
4-CV-01279-WHA
O RDER DENY
YING MOTIO OF PLAIN
ON
NTIFF
F OR JUDICIA RECUSAL OF THE HONORABLE
AL
W ILLIAM H. ALSUP

INTE CORPOR
EL
RATION et al.,
Defe
endants.

16

On June 4, 2014, pro se plaintiff Michael A. Bruzzone f
o
f
.
filed a motio pursuant t Section
on
to

17
18

144 of Title 28 of the United States Cod which mo
o
d
de,
otion seeks t disqualify the Honora William
to
y
able
m

19

A
dice, and dis
scrimination." (Dkt. No. 54.) On Ju 9, 2014,
une
H. Alsup on the grounds of "bias, prejud

20

Judg Alsup ref
ge
ferred plainti motion for reassignm pursua to Civil L
iff's
f
ment
ant
Local Rule 3-15, and the

21

mot
tion was assi
igned to the undersigned judge. Hav
u
d
ving carefull considered the papers submitted
ly
d

22

and the filings in this action and for the reasons set forth below the Court DENIES plain
n
n,
e
w,
ntiff's

23

tion.1
mot

24

I.

25
26

ROUND
BACKGR

The Fals Claims Ac codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-37
se
ct,
a
733, "permits individuals known as
s
s,
'rela
ators,' to file suit on beha of the Un
alf
nited States s
seeking dam
mages from persons who file false

27
28

1

Pursua to Federa Rule of Ci Procedur 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) the Court
ant
al
ivil
ure
d
l
),
deci
ides the moti without oral argume
ion
ent.

1

claims for government funds." Hooper v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 688 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir.

2

2012) (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1)). In prior proceedings in 2013, plaintiff, acting through

3

counsel, brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in this District, naming as defendants

4

Intel Corporation ("Intel") and others. The case was assigned to Judge Alsup as Civil Case No. 13-

5

3729.

6

On February 27, 2014, Judge Alsup dismissed plaintiff's qui tam action without prejudice

7

after the United States declined to intervene and plaintiff asserted, both in writing and at a hearing

8

held before Judge Alsup, that he lacked the financial resources to prosecute the qui tam action on

9

behalf of the United States. (Case No. 13-3729, Dkt. No. 31.)

10

On March 19, 2014, plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a seventy-two page

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

individual complaint against Intel and others. (Dkt. No. 1.) The complaint was styled a "Federal

12

Relator Civil Complaint." (Id.) It alleged two purported claims, "conspiracy to defraud on deceit"

13

(id. ¶¶ 93-137) and "gross negligence" (id. ¶¶ 138-52).2

14

On May 21, 2014, Judge Alsup struck the complaint. (Dkt. No. 51 ("May 21 Order").)

15

Judge Alsup's May 21 Order forms the basis of plaintiff's allegations of improper bias. In the May

16

21 Order, Judge Alsup related the procedural history of plaintiff's previous qui tam actions against

17

Intel. (Id. at 1-2.) Judge Alsup stated that his dismissal of Case No. 13-3729 "ended forever

18

[plaintiff's] qui tam action." (Id. at 2.) Judge Alsup then noted that plaintiff's newly filed

19

Complaint was "replete with 78 references to [plaintiff] as a 'relator.'" (Id.) Judge Alsup stated that

20

"[a] pro se relator cannot prosecute a qui tam action on behalf of the United States." (Id. (citing

21

United States ex rel. Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir.

22

2007)).) He further stated that plaintiff "is not a relator" and that "[t]he United States is in no way

23

involved with this action." (Id. (emphases in original).) Judge Alsup struck the complaint and gave

24

plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by a date certain. (Id.) Judge Alsup ordered that any

25

amended complaint "shall make no reference whatsoever to 'relator,' 'qui tam,' or the False Claims

26

Act, or imply in any way that [plaintiff] is acting on behalf of the United States." (Id. at 2-3.)

27
28

2

Outside the complaint, plaintiff describes the case as "an individual antitrust [and] civil
RICO suit[.]" (Dkt. No. 54 at 10.)
2

1

Judg Alsup wa
ge
arned: "If the new pleadin in any wa suggests that [plaintif is acting on behalf of
e
ng
ay
ff]
f

2

the United State the pleadi will be dismissed wi
U
es,
ing
d
ithout leave t amend ag
to
gain. [Plaint
tiff] would

3

be well advised to review th two motio to dismis and address the defici
w
he
ons
ss
iencies ident
tified therein
n

4

befo he files his first amen
ore
h
nded compla
aint." (Id. at 3.)
t

5

Plaintiff' motion contends that Judge Alsup May 21 O
f's
J
p's
Order evinces bias in its r
s
refusal to

6

ackn
nowledge plaintiff's statu as a relato its warnin that conti
us
or,
ng
inuing to ass such stat would
sert
tus

7

resu in dismiss with preju
ult
sal
udice, its sta
atement that dismissal of plaintiff's p
f
previous qui tam action

8

ende that action "forever," and in its ac of striking plaintiff's c
ed
ct
g
complaint.

9

II.

10

LEGAL STANDARD
When a party to a pr
roceeding be
elieves that th judge mig have "a p
the
ght
personal bia or
as

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

prejudice" again him, he may file an affidavit seek
nst
m
a
king recusal of that judge. 28 U.S.C § 144.
C.

12

The affidavit mu specifica allege "f
ust
ally
facts that fair support t contentio that the ju
rly
the
on
udge exhibits
s

13

bias or prejudice directed to
s
e
oward a party that stems from an extr
y
rajudicial so
ource." Unit States v.
ted

14

Silba, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9t Cir. 1980) "Since a f
th
).
federal judge is presume to be impa
e
ed
artial, the

15

part seeking di
ty
isqualificatio bears a su
on
ubstantial bu
urden to show that the jud is biased Perry v.
w
dge
d."

16

Schw
warzenegger 790 F. Sup 2d 1119, 1129 (N.D. Cal. 2011) aff'd sub nom. Perry v. B
r,
pp.
,
.
Brown, 671

17

F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012) (q
d
C
quoting Torr v. Chrysl Fin. Co., Case No. C
res
ler
C-07-00915 J 2007
JW,

18

WL 3165665, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2007).
t
C

19

The stan
ndard for recu or disqu
usal
ualification i "whether a reasonable person with knowledge
is
e
h
e

20

w
ude
e's
lity
of all the facts would conclu the judge impartial might reasonably be questioned." United

21

.
Stat v. Studley 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986). This stand
tes
y,
9
h
dard does not mandate re
t
ecusal upon

22

an "unsubstantia suspicio of personal bias or pr ejudice." U
ated
on
United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d

23

909, 913 (9th Ci 2008) (cit
ir.
tations omitt
ted). "[A] ju
udge should be disqualif only if it appears
fied
t

24

that he or she ha
arbors an ave
ersion, hostility or dispo
osition of a k
kind that a fa
air-minded p
person could

25

not set aside wh judging the dispute." See Liteky v. United St
hen
t
"
tates, 510 U.S. 540, 558 (1994)

26

(Ken
nnedy, J., co
oncurring). An adverse judicial rulin is not an a
A
j
ng
adequate bas for recusal. Id. at
sis

27

549. Nor may parties "attac a judge's impartiality on the basis of informat
p
ck
i
tion and beliefs acquired
d

28

whil acting in his or her jud
le
h
dicial capaci
ity." United States v. M
d
McTiernan, 69 F.3d 882, 891 (9th
95
,

3

1

Cir. 2012) cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 964 (U.S. 2013) (
(quoting United States v Frias-Ram
v.
mirez, 670

2

F.2d 849, 853 n.6 (9th Cir. 1982)). Abs some ev
d
1
sent
vidence of bi or prejud originati outside
ias
dice
ing

3

of a proceeding, a judge's ru
,
ulings may be considered as a basis f disqualif
b
d
for
fication "only in the
y

4

rarest circumsta
ances." Litek 510 U.S. at 555 ("Alm invaria
ky,
most
ably they are proper grou
e
unds for

5

eal,
r
appe not for recusal.").

6

III.

7

DISCUSS
SION
The Cou has carefu reviewed plaintiff's affidavit and concludes that plaintif has
urt
ully
d
ff

8

artic
culated no fa that coul form a leg
acts
ld
gitimate basi upon whic to disqual Judge A
is
ch
lify
Alsup from

9

pres
siding over plaintiff's cas Plaintiff identifies no evidence o bias beyon Judge Als
p
se.
f
o
of
nd
sup's judicia
al
rulin
ngs. See Un
nited States v. Coleman, 918 F.2d 18 1 (9th Cir. 1
v
1990) ("A judge's rulings while
s

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

pres
siding over a case do not constitute extrajudicial conduct.") (
t
e
(citing Nilsson v. Louisia
ana

12

Hyd
drolec, 854 F.2d 1538, 15 (9th Cir 1988)). W
F
548
r.
While plaintif relies solel on advers rulings
ff
ly
se

13

Judg Alsup ma against him, "[a]dver findings do not equat to bias." J
ge
ade
h
rse
te
Johnson, 610 F.3d at

14

1148. To the ex
xtent that pla
aintiff suggests that Judg Alsup's ch
ge
hoice of wor is itself e
rds
evidence of

15

bias the Court finds that sug
s,
f
ggestion mis
splaced. The language s
e
suggests that Judge Alsu was being
t
up
g

16

emp
phatic, nothin else. Eve "expressio of impat
ng
en
ons
tience, dissa
atisfaction, an
nnoyance, an even
nd

17

ange are not gr
er'
rounds for es
stablishing bias or impar
b
rtiality . . . ." Pesnell v. Arsenault, 5 F.3d
"
543

18

1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lite 510 U.S at 555-56) see also O
h
(
eky,
S.
);
Ortiz v. Stewa 149 F.3d
art,
d

19

ir.
o
y
mments mad by the jud after the court had
de
dge
923, 940 (9th Ci 1998) (no impartiality where "com

20

mined the pl
leadings and stipulations simply refl ected that th judge was appropriate upset
d
s
he
s
ely
exam

21

with petitioners'' conduct" (internal quot
h
tation marks and bracket omitted)). Stern speec alone
ts
ch

22

prov
vides no basi for recusa See Liteky 510 U.S. a 555-56. S
is
al.
ky,
at
Similarly, to the extent th
hat

23

plain
ntiff's motio reflects pe
on
ersonal umbr
rage at Judge Alsup's rul
e
ling that plai
intiff is not a "relator"

24

(see Dkt. No. 54 at 17-24), that umbrage does not su
e
4
t
e
upply ground for recusa
ds
al.

25

Plaintiff fails to artic
f
culate any fa that tend to show tha Judge Als is biased against him
acts
d
at
sup
d
m

26

pers
sonally. "Th is simply no evidenc that the ju
here
y
ce
udge acted o of an imp
out
proper or cor
rrupt

27

mot
tive." Blixse v. Yellows
eth
stone Mount
tain Club, LL 742 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir. 2
LC,
2014). This

28

on
case is not one of the rare ci
e
o
ircumstances in which d
s
disqualificatio should be granted ba
e
ased on a

4

1

judg rulings. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. The ad
ge's
dequacy of J
Judge Alsup''s rulings is p
properly

2

save for appeal if any. See id.
ed
l,
e

3

IV.

CONCLU
USION

4

Plaintiff' motion is DENIED. Th above-sty
f's
he
yled case rem
mains before Judge Alsu
e
up.

5

This Ord terminate Docket No. 54.
der
es
N

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Date June 17, 2014
e:
2

____
___________
__________
___________
________
YVONN GONZAL ROGERS
NE
LEZ
S
UNITED STA
ATES DISTRIC COURT JUDGE
CT

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5