Randazza et al v. Cox et al

Filing 86

ORDER Denying 44 Defendant's Motion for Recusal of District Judge Gloria Navarro and Denying 81 Motion to Disqualify Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 2/21/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5

MARC J. RANDAZZA, an individual,
JENNIFER RANDAZZA, an individual, and
NATALIA RANDAZZA, a minor,

6

Plaintiff,
vs.

7
8
9

CRYSTAL COX, an individual, and ELIOT
BERNSTEIN, an individual,
Defendants.

10

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL
ORDER
(ECF Nos. 44 and 81)

11

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Recusal of District Judge Gloria Navarro

12
13

(ECF No. 44) and the Motion to Disqualify Judge Gloria M. Navarro (ECF No. 81) both filed by

14

Defendant Crystal Cox (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs Marc J. Randazza, Jennifer Randazza, and

15

Natalia Randazza (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Response (ECF No. 49) and Defendant filed

16

a Reply (ECF No. 52).

17

I.

DISCUSSION
This is not Defendant’s first request for recusal. In fact, Defendant previously filed a

18
19

motion styled as a Motion Requesting the Recusal, Removal of District Judge. (ECF No. 20.)

20

The Court denied this prior motion at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on January 7, 2013, at

21

which Defendant failed to appear. (See ECF No. 35.) Accordingly, these motions represent the

22

second and third requests for recusal. Defendant filed both of these motions subsequent to the

23

Court’s January 7, 2013, ruling. (See id.) For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motions are

24

both DENIED.

25

///

Page 1 of 2

Defendant’s Motion for Recusal of District Judge Gloria Navarro (ECF No. 44)

1

A.

2

Rule 7-2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the

3

District of Nevada provides that “[t]he failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in

4

support of the motion shall constitute a consent to the denial of the motion.” LR 7-2(d).

5

Defendant has failed to comply with this rule. Specifically, Defendant’s motion lacks any legal

6

authority to serve as the basis for the requested relief. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion (ECF

7

No. 44) is DENIED.
Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Gloria M. Navarro (ECF No. 81)

8

B.

9

Defendant includes slightly more legal support for her subsequently filed Motion to

10

Disqualify. (See Mot. at 3-7, ECF No. 81.) Specifically, Defendant argues that disqualification

11

is required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. (Id.) However, after quoting the statute at length,

12

Defendant fails to provide facts from which “a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts

13

would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Merely entering

14

a ruling in favor of a particular party is insufficient evidence of bias to require recusal by a

15

judge. Therefore, having read and considered the briefing on this motion, the Court DENIES

16

Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Gloria M. Navarro.

17

II.

18

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Recusal of District Judge

19

Gloria Navarro (ECF No. 44) and the Motion to Disqualify Judge Gloria M. Navarro (ECF No.

20

81) are DENIED.

21

DATED this 21st day of February, 2013.

22
23
24

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

25

Page 2 of 2