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)

Download PDF
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?