Oracle USA, Inc. et al v. Rimini Street, Inc. et al
Filing
1104
ORDER DENYING ECF No. 1077 Motion for reassignment. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 11/28/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
11
ORACLE USA, INC., a Colorado corporation;
ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, a California corporation;
12
Plaintiffs,
10
13
14
15
Case No. 2:10-cv-0106-LRH-VCF
ORDER
v.
RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation;
SETH RAVIN, an individual;
16
Defendants.
17
18
Before the court is plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle America, Inc., and Oracle
19
International Corporation’s (collectively “Oracle”) motion for reassignment of action to
20
Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen. ECF No. 1077. Defendants Rimini Street, Inc. (“Rimini Street”)
21
and Seth Ravin (“Ravin”) filed an opposition to the motion (ECF No. 1093) to which Oracle
22
replied (ECF No. 1095).
23
I.
24
Facts and Procedural Background
This action was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen. On May 2, 2016,
25
Attorney West Allen, counsel for defendants, was appointed as chairperson of the merit selection
26
panel considering Magistrate Judge Leen’s reappointment as a magistrate judge. To avoid any
27
appearance of conflict arising from the Allen appointment, Magistrate Judge Leen recused
28
herself from this action. ECF No. 1036. Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach was then assigned as
1
1
the magistrate judge for this action. ECF No. 1037. Subsequently, the merit selection panel
2
considering Magistrate Judge Leen’s reappointment completed it process and the District Court
3
for the District of Nevada approved Magistrate Judge Leen’s appointment as magistrate judge to
4
a new term. Thereafter, Oracle filed the present motion to reassign this matter to Magistrate
5
Judge Leen. ECF No. 1077.
6
II.
7
Discussion
In its motion for reassignment, Oracle contends that Magistrate Judge Leen’s recusal
8
from this action was “temporary” and only for the duration of the reappointment process. See
9
ECF No. 1077. The court disagrees. Magistrate Judge Leen’s recusal was “for all further
10
proceedings” in this action. See ECF No. 1036. Further, the court views judicial recusal of any
11
judge as a final act. The court commends all of the extraordinary work that Magistrate Judge
12
Leen has done in this action, but there is no basis to reassign this case back to her. Therefore, the
13
court shall deny Oracle’s motion for reassignment.
14
15
16
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for reassignment (ECF No. 1077)
is DENIED.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
DATED this 28th day of November, 2016.
19
20
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?