Chan v. TimeWarner Inc et al

Filing 60

ORDER DENYING 55 , 56 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/13/2017. The Clerk shall close this file. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2017) Modified on 9/13/2017 (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 PENG CHAN, Case No. 5:16-cv-06268-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 10 11 TIMEWARNER, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 56 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 14 Defendant Time Warner Inc. moved for a more definite statement on January 13, 2017. 15 Dkt. No. 25. This Court granted the motion, and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), Plaintiff Peng Chan 16 had 14 days to comply. Dkt. No. 52. Chan failed to do so. On July 27, this Court issued an order to 17 show cause, requiring Chan to comply with the Court's order or to demonstrate good cause why 18 the case should not be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. No. 54. Chan again failed to do so. 19 Instead, Chan filed a motion for recusal on August 3. Dkt. No. 55. The Court finds that 20 Chan’s motion is untimely because it was filed more than seven months after this action 21 commenced, and only after Chan received an adverse ruling. See Heilman v. Sanchez, No. 2:10- 22 cv-01120 JAM DAD , 2015 WL 5813420, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2015) (“Granting a motion to 23 recuse many months after an action has been filed wastes judicial resources and encourages 24 manipulation of the judicial process.”). Chan’s motion also lacks merit. Chan argues that recusal is 25 warranted because Judge Davila serves on the 19-person Santa Clara Law Advisory Board with an 26 employee of defendant Oracle Corporation and an employee of defendant Verizon Inc. Dkt. No. 27 28 Case No.: 5:16-cv-06268-EJD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1 1 55 at 4–10. This argument falls short of satisfying the “substantial burden” that Chan must satisfy 2 to show that recusal is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). See Torres v. Chrysler Fin. Co., No. C 3 07-00915 JW, 2007 WL 3165665, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2007) (“Since a federal judge is 4 presumed to be impartial, the party seeking disqualification bears a substantial burden to show that 5 the judge is biased.”). Accordingly, Chan’s motion for recusal is denied. 6 Chan also moves for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order 7 granting Time Warner’s motion for a more definite statement. Dkt. No. 56. Chan’s sole argument 8 is that Chan has “learned of certain facts regarding Judge Davila that give rise to a potential basis 9 for recusal.” Id. at 3. The Court denies Chan’s motion for reconsideration because, as discussed 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 above, Chan has not established that recusal is warranted. Because Chan has failed to comply with this Court’s order to show cause (Dkt. No. 54), Chan’s action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk shall close this file. 13 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 13, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:16-cv-06268-EJD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?