Kraft v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 123

Order DENYING 110 Motion to Disqualify Judge. Signed by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin on August 30, 2024. (amolc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

RUNE KRAFT,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

Case No. 22-cv-01266-AMO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
DISQUALIFICATION AND VACATUR

v.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 110

Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff Rune Kraft moves to disqualify the undersigned based on Title 28 U.S.C. § 445(a)

12

and (b)(1). Section 455(a) states that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United

13

States shall disqualify [her]self in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be

14

questioned.” Section 455(b) states that the judge “shall also disqualify [her]self . . . [w]here [she]

15

has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary

16

facts concerning the proceeding.” The same substantive standard applies to each subsection. See

17

United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The test for personal bias or prejudice

18

in section 144 is identical to that in section 455(b)(1) . . . [and] section (b)(1) simply provides a

19

specific example of a situation in which a judge’s ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned’

20

pursuant to section 455(a).”). This standard is an objective one and asks “whether a reasonable

21

person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might

22

reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting

23

Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005)). Importantly, “judicial rulings

24

alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States,

25

510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); see also Holland, 519 F.3d at 914 (“[T]he judge’s conduct during the

26

proceedings should not, except in the ‘rarest of circumstances’ form the sole basis for recusal

27

under § 455(a).”). “[A] judge has ‘as strong a duty to sit when there is no legitimate reason to

28

1

recuse as [she] does to recuse when the law and facts require.’” Clemens, 428 F.3d at 1179

2

(quoting Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 351 (10th Cir. 1995)).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

Kraft argues that the Court’s order granting Defendants’ request to file pre-answer motions

4

(ECF 100) represents a “fraud on the court” by depriving him of “a normal process of

5

adjudication” (Mot. at 4 (ECF 110 at 10)). The substance of this accusation appears to be Kraft’s

6

belief that he is entitled to amend his Complaint following Defendants’ initial Rule 12(b) motion.

7

See Pl.’s Objections (ECF 109). As the Court explained in an earlier order, the Court’s scheduling

8

orders do not contravene the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF 104. Moreover, the Court’s

9

conduct during the case does not “constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky,

10

510 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff fails to establish bias on the part of the Court by permitting Defendants

11

to file motions contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and setting forth a structure

12

for such motions.

13

Kraft argues further that the Court violated the Civil Local Rules, but he does not specify

14

which rule was violated or what conduct violated the Rules. Mot. at 5 (ECF 110 at 11). Without

15

more, Kraft’s contention does not demonstrate bias or prejudice by the Court.

16

Kraft finally asserts that Wells Fargo’s attorneys may not properly represent the bank

17

because, in so doing, counsel is supporting a criminal enterprise. Prior to reassignment, the

18

Honorable James Donato considered and rejected this same argument. See Text Order (ECF 77).

19

Moreover, these arguments fail to establish bias or the appearance of impropriety by the Court

20

relating to Defendants’ representation by their chosen counsel.

21

Because Kraft fails to meet his burden to show that the undersigned is biased or

22

prejudiced, or that her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, the Court DENIES Kraft’s

23

motion for retroactive disqualification and vacatur.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 30, 2024

26
27
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge

28
2