ANNA VERTKIN V. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, No. 11-15211 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANNA VERTKIN, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-15211 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00775-RS v. MEMORANDUM * WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE; et al., Defendants - Appellees. ANNA VERTKIN, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-15215 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-03527-RS and MARIA SOCORRO RUIZ GUEVARA, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; et al., Defendants - Appellees. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 13, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Anna Vertkin, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court s judgments dismissing her related actions arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a recusal motion. Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vertkin s motions to disqualify the district court judge because Vertkin failed to demonstrate that the judge s impartiality might be reasonably questioned, that the judge had a personal bias or prejudice, or that either the judge or his former law firm represented a defendant in the instant matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)-(b)(2) (setting forth grounds for recusal, including if the judge served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter ); Liteky v. United States, 510 ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 11-15211 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) ( [J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. ). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 3 11-15211
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
