Hudena James et al v. US Bancorp et al, No. 5:2018cv01762 - Document 65 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER MADE PURSUANT TO 28 USC 144,455 63 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc) Modified on 10/13/2020 (lc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hudena James et al v. US Bancorp et al Doc. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court Central District of California 8 9 10 HUDENA JAMES, and JACQUELINE 11 JAMES 12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 Case 5:18-CV-01762-RGK-SP ORDER"DENYING"PLAINTIFFS’"" MOTION"TO"DISQUALIFY"JUDGE"R." GARY"KLAUSNER"MADE"PURSUANT" TO""28"U.S.C."§§"144,"455"[DE 63.] 15 U.S. BANCORP, et al., 16 17 Defendants. _______________________________ 18 19 " I. " "INTRODUCTION" On" August" 22," 2018" Plaintiffs" filed" a" complaint" for" damages" against" U.S." Bancorp,"U.S."Bank"National"Association,"Andy"Cecere,"Kathy"Sandoval,"Andy"Nguyen" and" Does" 1 10" alleging" racial" discrimination." " Generally," it" is" alleged" that" plaintiffs" attempted"to"open"an"account"with"a"branch"located"in"Alta"Loma"but"were"told"that" they"would"be"unable"to"open"a"new"account"unless"they"lived"within"5"–"6"miles"of" the" branch." " Almost" simultaneously," they" called" the" corporate" offices" from" the" Dockets.Justia.com 1 parking" lot" of" the" location" and" were" able" to" open" an" account" over" the" phone."" 2 Plaintiff’s" theory" is" that" the" bank" representatives" who" processed" the" request" over" 3 the" phone" could" not" see" plaintiffs" and" did" not" know" that" plaintiffs" were" African" 4 Americans," while" those" inside" the" branch" were" able" to" identify" plaintiffs’" race" and" 5 were"then"able"to"execute"their"discriminatory"practices"or"policies.""[DE 1]." 6 7 8 9 In"response"to"the"Defendant’"challenge"to"the"pleading,"the"Court"ordered"all" counts,"other"than"claim"2"of"the"complaint"dismissed"with"leave"to"amend.""Claim"2" was"dismissed"with"prejudice."[DE 27.]" 10 On" February" 7," 2019" Plaintiffs" filed" their" First" Amended" Complaint" (“FAC”)" 11 alleging"each"of"the"original"claims"with"the"exception"of"Claim"2."[DE 29.]""On"April" 12 10,"2019"the"Court"granted"Defendants’"Motion"to"Dismiss"pursuant"to"Federal"Rules" 13 of"Civil"Procedure,"Rule"12(b)(6)"with"prejudice,"[DE 45.]" 14 15 ON"May"3,"2019"Plaintiffs"filed"a"timely"Notice"of"Appeal."[DE 46.]""On"August" 12," 2020" the" Ninth" Circuit" Court" of" Appeal" affirmed" in" part," reversed" in" part" and" 16 17 18 remanded."[DE 56.]" On" August" 24," 2020" Plaintiff" filed" the" instant" Motion" to" Disqualify" United" 19 States"District"Judge"R."Gary"Klausner.""As"required"by"statute,"General"Order"19 03," 20 and" Local" Rule" 72 5," the" matter" has" been" assigned" to" this" Court" for" determination." 21 [DE 64]." " After" giving" due" consideration" to" plaintiffs’" arguments," the" motion" is" 22 DENIED." 23 24 The"timing"of"the"motion"is"somewhat"curious.""This"matter"has"been"pending" before" Judge" Klausner" for" nearly" two" years."" It" was" only" after" the" Court" of" Appeals" 25 26 27 reversed"a"portion"of"Judge"Klausner’s"order"dismissing"the"majority"of"the"complaint" did"Plaintiffs"come"to"the"conclusion"that"Judge"Klausner"is"prejudiced"against"them." 28 2 1 Plaintiffs" cite" six" categories" of" circumstances" which" they" contend" would" 2 compel"a"reasonably"intelligent"person,"with"knowledge"of"the"facts,"to"conclude"the" 3 judge"could"not"be"impartial."Clemens"v."U.S."Dist."Court"for"the"Cent."Dist."of"Cal.,"428" 4 F.3d" 1175," 1178" (9th" Cir." 2005.)" These" matters" are" set" forth" in" Mr." James’’" 5 Declaration.""They"are:" 6 7 8 9 1. ""Judge" Klausner" graduated" from" Loyola" Law" School" in" 1967." " One" of" the" defense" attorneys" also" graduated" from" Loyola" 21" years" later." " Judge" Klausner"is"a"“big"supporter"of"Loyola.”""Lastly,"Plaintiffs"feel"that"it"is"likely" 10 that" Judge" Klausner"hired" the" attorney," while" he"was" still" a" student," as" an" 11 extern"to"work"in"his"chambers,"presumably"because"the"judge"has"hired"a" 12 number" of" Loyola" grads" for" his" chambers." " None" of" this" material" is" 13 appropriate"for"a"Declaration"because"none"of"it"falls"within"the"category"of" 14 facts" within" the" personal" knowledge" of" the" declarant."" “[C]onclusory," self 15 serving"affidavit[s],"lacking"detailed"facts"and"any"supporting"evidence,”"are" 16 17 18 insufficient"to"create"a"genuine"issue"of"material"fact."FTC"v."Publ'g"Clearing" House,"Inc.,"104"F.3d"1168,"1171"(9th"Cir.1997).""Declarations"must"be"made" 19 with" personal" knowledge;" declarations" not" based" on" personal" knowledge" 20 are" inadmissible" and" cannot" raise" a" genuine" issue" of" material" fact." See" 21 Skillsky v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 893 F.2d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.1990)" 22 2. Defense" counsel" included" the" trial" court" Judge" Klausner" on" the" service" list" 23 while"the"case"was"on"appeal.""Plaintiff’s"believe"this"was"counsel’s"way"of" 24 25 trying"to"ingratiate"himself"to"the"judge." 3. The" defense" attorney" sought" reconsideration/rehearing" on" the" Circuit" 26 27 Court’s"order,"granting"part"of"the"appeal." 28 3 1 Items"2"&"3"are"not"actions"taken"by"Judge"Klausner,"but"by"one"of"the" 2 attorneys"or"the"secretary"of"one"of"the"attorneys.""Unexplained"is"how" 3 these"actions"can"be"attributed"to"the"judge." 4 4. Judge"Klausner"is"alleged"to"be"a"registered"Republican.""The"leader"of"the" 5 Republican"party"is"Donald"Trump"who"has"a"low"opinion"of"the"movement" 6 Black" Lives" Matter." " As" a" result," Judge" Klausner" is" biased." " Like" the" 7 allegations"about"Loyola"Law"School,"how"much"of"this"is"based"on"personal" 8 knowledge?""Was"Judge"Klausner"registered"as"a"Republican"when"he"was" 9 10 appointed?""Is"he"still"registered"as"a"Republican"today?"What"would"lead"to" 11 the"conclusion"that"he"is"guided"by"the"likes"and"dislikes"of"Donald"Trump?"" 12 Given" the" constitutional" separation" of" powers" as" well" as" the" provisions" of" 13 Article"III,"the"Executive"Branch"has"no"control"or"influence"over"the"Judicial" 14 Branch." 15 5. Judge Klausner is incompetent to handle a civil rights / racial 16 discrimination case. No facts are offered to support this contention." 17 6. Judge Klausner did not grant leave to amend, which Plaintiff feels is 18 commonly done with pro se litigants." 19 " " " """ """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""II.""""""""""LEGAL"STANDARD" 20 21 " 22 trial" before" an" impartial" judge," 28" U.S.C.§§144" and" 455." " Section" 455" provides" that" 23 any" judge" shall" disqualify" himself" in" any" proceeding" in" which" his" impartiality" might" 24 reasonably"be"questioned.""The"section"also"provides"specific"examples"of"situations" 25 where"a"judge’s"impartiality"might"be"questioned,"for"example"when"the"judge"might" 26 have" a" financial" interest" that" could" be" affected" by" the" outcome" of" the" matter," or" 27 circumstances" that" if" known," might" cause" a" reasonable" person" to" question" the" 28 judge’s"impartiality." There" are" two" federal" statutes" enacted" to" assure" that" litigants" receive" a" fair" 4 Section"144"provides:"“Whenever"a"party"to"any"proceeding"in"a"district"court" 1 2 makes"and"files"a"timely"and"sufficient"affidavit"that"the"judge"before"whom"the" 3 matter"is"pending"has"a"personal"bias"or"prejudice"either"against"him"or"in"favor"of" 4 any"adverse"party,"such"judge"shall"proceed"no"further"therein,"but"another"judge" 5 shall"be"assigned"to"hear"such"proceeding.”" 6 " 7 prejudice"exists,"and"shall"be"filed"not"less"than"ten"days"before"the"beginning"of"the" 8 term"at"which"the"proceeding"is"to"be"heard,"or"good"cause"shall"be"shown"for"failure" 9 to"file"it"within"such"time."A"party"may"file"only"one"such"affidavit"in"any"case."It"shall" “The"affidavit"shall"state"the"facts"and"the"reasons"for"the"belief"that"bias"or" 10 be"accompanied"by"a"certificate"of"counsel"of"record"stating"that"it"is"made"in"good" 11 faith.”""(Emphasis"added.)."""" 12 Here," the" motion" is" accompanied" by" a" Declaration" and" therefore" will" be" 13 treated"as"if"brought"under"section"144.""It"is"in"the"area"of"“facts”"that"the"affidavit"is" 14 woefully"inadequate." 15 16 III. NO" FACTS" HAVE" BEEN" OFFERED" TO" SUPPORT" ANY" LEGAL" BASIS" FOR"RECUSAL" 17 First," a" number" of" “facts”" set" forth" in" the" Declaration" of" James" do" not" state" 18 matters"within"the"personal"knowledge"of"the"declarant."For"example,"whether"Judge" 19 Klausner" and" defense" counsel" graduated" from" Loyola" Law" School" is" a"matter" which" 20 may"be"determined"by"reference"to"a"number"of"reliable"sources."However,"whether" 21 or" not" the" Judge" is" a" “big" supporter" of" Loyola" is" not" a" matter" within" the" personal" 22 knowledge"of"the"declarant."That"is"nothing"more"than"speculation"and"not"properly" 23 included" in" a" declaration." In" addition”," the" declarant" “feels”" that" “it" is" likely”" that" 24 defense"counsel"worked"in"the"judge’s"chambers"as"a"student.""Clearly"these"are"not" 25 facts,"nor"are"these"matters"within"the"knowledge"of"the"declarant"and"constitute"yet" 26 another" example" of" matter" not" properly" included" in" a" declaration." " Whether" the" 27 judge" has" hired" a" number" of" Loyola" graduates" is" also" a" matter" not" within" the" 28 5 1 personal"knowledge"of"the"Declarant."""This"material"is"stricken"from"the"declaration" 2 and"will"not"be"considered"by"this"Court"as"“facts”"supporting"the"claim"of"bias." 3 The" Plaintiffs’" fixation" on" Loyola" and" how" that" is" relevant" to" the" question" of" 4 Judge"Klausner’s"ability"to"be"impartial"is"lost"on"this"Court.""Los"Angeles"and"Orange" 5 Counties" have" a" number" of" law" schools" including" UCLA," USC," Loyola," Pepperdine," 6 Southwestern," U.C.I." and" Chapman." Each" of" these" law" schools" " provide" many" 7 hundreds"of"lawyers"to"the"local"legal"community."It"is"therefore"highly"likely"that"a" 8 judge"who"graduated"from"one"of"these"law"schools"will"encounter"an"attorney"who" 9 graduated"from"the"same"law"school.""It"is"not"a"matter"of"any"importance."Indeed,"it" 10 is"not"a"subject"judge’s"research"on"each"of"their"cases.""To"the"extent"the"contention" 11 is"being"made"that"judges,"or"any"judge"would"be"partial"or"prejudiced"against"or"in" 12 favor" of" any" party" by" virtue" of" what" law" school" the" parties" attorneys" attended" is" 13 absurd.""However,"that"is"not"the"contention"here.""Plaintiff"makes"the"specific"claim" 14 that" Judge" Klausner" “may”" be" favorably" disposed" to" defense" counsel" in" “this”" case" 15 because"they"both"attended"Loyola"and"it"is"plaintiff’s"“belief”"that"it"is"“likely”"that" 16 he" worked" in" Judge" Klausner’s" chambers" as" a" student." " And" to" drill" down" into" the"" 17 logical"reasoning"of"the"premises"of"his"argument,"one"must"believe"Judge"Klausner" 18 will" have" remembered" an" extern," who" by" definition" is" only" in" chambers" for" a" 19 semester,"34"years"later.""If"the"theory"was"based"on"facts"it"would"be"fanciful"at"best."" 20 However,"it"is"not"based"on"facts,"but"mere"conjecture.""Therefore"it"does"not"rise"to" 21 the"level"of"fanciful." 22 The" fact" that" the" defense" attorney" included" the" trial" court" on" the" service" list" 23 while" the" matter" was" on" appeal" is" of" no" consequence." " Before" the" advent" of" 24 electronic"dockets,"briefs"on"appeal"required"enough"copies"for"each"appellate"judge," 25 at"least"one"copy"for"the"next"highest"reviewing"court"and"a"copy"for"the"trial"court."" 26 The"fact"that"a"defense"attorney,"or"more"likely,"his"secretary,"placed"the"trial"court" 27 on"the"service"lists"does"not"mean"what"Plaintiff’s"say"it"does.""It"is""not"uncommon" 28 6 1 for" all" of" the" courts" which" have" handled" any" aspects" of" a" case" to" be" placed" on" the" 2 service"list."" 3 The" Opinion" of" the" Ninth" Circuit" affirmed" the" dismissal" of" the" NIED" and" IIED" 4 and"failure"to"train,"supervise"or"discipline"causes"of"action.""The"appellate"court"also" 5 found" that" it" was" proper" to" dismiss" without" leave" to" amend" because" amendment" 6 would" have" been" futile." " However," with" the" 1981" claim" and" the" Unruh" claims" the" 7 Court"of"Appeals"disagreed"with"Judge"Klausner’s"dismissal"and"found:" 8 “[P]laintiffs’"allegations,"liberally"construed,"were"sufficient"to"show"intentional" 9 discrimination."" See" Starr" v." Baca," 652" F.3d" 1202," 1216 17" (9th" Cir." 2011)" (“If" there" 10 are" two" alternative" explanations," one" advanced" by" defendant" and" the" other" 11 advanced" by" plaintiff," both" of" which" are" plausible," plaintiff’s" complaint" survives" a" 12 motion"to"dismiss"under"Rule"12(b)(6).”);"Lindsey"v."SLT"L.A.,"LLC,"447"F.3d"1138,"1145" 13 (9th"Cir."2006).”""(Memorandum"Decision,"DE "56"""Filed"08/12/20"""Page"3"of"4.)" 14 15 IV. THE" FACT" THE" NINTH" CIRCUIT" REACHED" A" DIFFERENT" CONCLUSION"IS"NOT"EVIDENCE"OF"BIAS" 16 Plaintiff"complains"that"the"Ninth"Circuit"panel"reached"a"different"conclusion" 17 than" did" Judge" Klausner" which," in" his" view," is" evidence" of" bias" or" prejudice" on" the" 18 part"of"Judge"Klausner.""It"is"not.""It"is"not"uncommon"for"the"Circuit"Court"of"Appeals" 19 to"reach"conclusions"which"differ"from"those"reached"by"the"district"court.""Similarly," 20 it"is"not"uncommon"for"the"Supreme"Court"to"reach"conclusions"different"from"those" 21 reached" by" the" Circuit" Courts" of" Appeals." " It" is" neither" productive" nor" accurate" to" 22 assume" anything" nefarious" in" the" motives" of" any" judge" because" another" judge" 23 reaches"a"different"conclusion"on"the"same"issue." 24 Moreover,"judicial"rulings""alone"almost"never"constitute"a"valid"basis"for"a"bias" 25 or"partiality"motion."See"United"States"v."Grinnell"Corp.,"384"U.S.,"at"583,"86"S.Ct.,"at" 26 1710."In"and"of"themselves"(i.e.,"apart"from"surrounding"comments"or"accompanying" 27 opinion)," they" cannot" possibly" show" reliance" upon" an" extrajudicial" source;" and" can" 28 only" in" the" rarest" circumstances" evidence" the" degree" of" favoritism" or" antagonism" 7 1 required"(.""."".)"when"no"extrajudicial"source"is"involved."Almost"invariably,"they"are" 2 proper"grounds"for"appeal,"not"for"recusal."Second,"opinions"formed"by"the"judge"on" 3 the" basis" of" facts" introduced" or" events" occurring" in" the" course" of" the" current" 4 proceedings,"or"of"prior"proceedings,"do"not"constitute"a"basis"for"a"bias"or"partiality" 5 motion"unless"they"display"a"deep seated"favoritism"or"antagonism"that"would"make" 6 fair" judgment" impossible." Liteky" v." United" States," " 510" U.S." 540,555" 114" S.Ct." 1147," 7 1157."(1994)" 8 Lastly,"Plaintiff"complains"that"he"was"not"given"numerous"attempts"to"amend" 9 his"complaint.""He"seems"to"imply"that"as"a"pro"se"litigant,"as"a"matter"of"right"he"is" 10 entitled" to" amendment" after" amendment." " The" Ninth" Circuit" also" concluded" that" 11 leave"to"amend"would"have"been"futile.""Plaintiff"does"not"allege"they"too"are"biased." 12 What" plaintiff" overlooks" is" that" he" was" given" explicit" instructions" as" to" why" his" 13 complaint"was"factually"inadequate"and"how"it"was"to"be"corrected.""He"repeated"his" 14 errors"from"the"original"complaint,"or"simply"incorporated"the"language"or"the"order" 15 explaining"the"pleading’s"deficiencies"into"the"amended"complaint"as"a"substitute"for" 16 its"inadequate"facts.""When"a"plaintiff"ignores"the"instructions"of"the"court"as"to"ways" 17 his" pleading" is" to" be" corrected," what" purpose" is" served" by" granting" additional" 18 opportunities"to"ignore"the"court’s"instructions?"""Plaintiff"did"himself"no"favors"by"his" 19 blatant"failures"to"comply"with"the"rules.""As"Judge"Klausner"noted,"his"opposition"to" 20 the" motion" to" dismiss" the" FAC" was" late" and" greatly" exceeded" the" permissible" page" 21 length.""It"should"also"be"noted"that"he"consistently"violated"the"rule"requiring"papers" 22 be"double spaced"with"a"typeface"not"smaller"than"14 point.""While"Judge"Klausner" 23 could" have" easily" rejected" the" papers" for" filing" for" being" in" non compliance," he" 24 accepted"the"non compliant,"difficult"to"read"documents.""Not"an"action"indicative"of" 25 a"judge"who"holds"a"bias"against"a"party."""""""""" 26 V""""CONCLUSION" In" the" final" analysis," the" Court" is" unable" to" articulate" a" logical" reason" to" 27 " 28 conclude"there"exists"any"level"of"bias"against"Plaintiffs"or"favoritism"towards"another" 8 1 party"to"the"instant"litigation.""Frankly,"attempting"to"construct"a"rational"argument" 2 as" to" why" a" judge" cannot" be" impartial" in" a" case" is" not" the" role" of" the" Court," but" a" 3 burden"which"must"be"shouldered"by"the"party"bringing"the"motion"to"disqualify."(28" 4 U.S.C."§"144.)""Here,"Plaintiff"has"not"met"that"burden." 5 " 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Nothing"constructive"can"come"of"characterizing"the"instant"motion.""Suffice"it" to" say" that" disconnected" conclusory" assertions" of" bias," based" on" speculation" with" literally"no"factual"support,"are"insufficient"to"convince"this"Court"that"a"prima"facie" case"of"bias"has"been"made.""For"that"reason,"the"motion"is"DENIED." " IT"IS"SO"ORDERED." " DATED:"""""October"13,"2020.". " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " """ _________________________________" _____________________________________ " """""""OTIS"D."WRIGHT,"II" """""""OTIS D. WRIG GHT, II """"UNITED"STATES"DISTRICT"JUDGE""""""""""""" """UNITED STATES DISSTRICT JUDGE""""""""""""" 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
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.
