Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation Legal Department et al

Filing 7

ORDER VACATING PRIOR ORDER AND FOR REASSIGNMENT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/7/16. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE,

Case No. 16-mc-80111-RS

Plaintiff,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER VACATING PRIOR ORDER
AND FOR REASSIGNMENT

12
13
14

INTEL CORPORATION LEGAL
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff in this action is subject to a pre-filing review order. This case file was opened on

17

May 19, 2016, when plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a new civil complaint against the

18

named defendants. The matter was assigned to the undersigned, who issued an order directing the

19

Clerk not to accept the complaint for filing and dismissing the action.

20

In Case No. 16-mc-80103 plaintiff has now filed an “Affidavite” [sic] and “Certificate of

21

Good Faith,” in which he seeks recusal of the undersigned in both that case and this one. An order

22

has issued in Case No. 16-mc-80103 denying the motion for recusal in that case for reasons

23

explained in the order.

24

The grounds on which plaintiff seeks recusal in this action are not entirely clear, but

25

appear to include (1) the undersigned’s stock ownership in Intel Corporation; (2) the

26

undersigned’s former association with Morrison & Foerster, a law firm that purportedly has

27

represented Intel, and with which the judge named as a defendant in the proposed complaint was

28

also once associated, and; (3) the ruling issued in this case.

1

Neither the undersigned’s former association with Morrison & Foerster nor the ruling

2

issued in this case presents a basis for recusal. As the proposed complaint seeks to assert claims

3

against Intel Corporation and/or its “legal department,” however, the undersigned’s stock

4

ownership in Intel presents a basis for automatic recusal. That the matter was assigned to, and was

5

acted on by, the undersigned occurred through administrative error. Accordingly, the order

6

rejecting the complaint and dismissing the case filed on May 24, 2016 (Dkt. No. 6) is hereby

7

VACATED. The matter shall be assigned to a new judge for purposes of considering and ruling

8

on the motion for leave to file the proposed complaint.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15

Dated: June 7, 2016
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO.

2

16-mc-80111-RS