Filed: Aug. 12, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2013
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION TO SET ASIDE" ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OR RECUSE EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. Plaintiff John Shek has moved to "set aside" this Court's order denying his motion to disqualify or recuse Judge William Alsup. Mr. Shek has offered no cognizable legal basis for relief. Nonetheless, the Court shall construe Mr. Shek's moving papers as seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-9. Having considered
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION TO SET ASIDE" ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OR RECUSE EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. Plaintiff John Shek has moved to "set aside" this Court's order denying his motion to disqualify or recuse Judge William Alsup. Mr. Shek has offered no cognizable legal basis for relief. Nonetheless, the Court shall construe Mr. Shek's moving papers as seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-9. Having considered t..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION TO SET ASIDE" ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OR RECUSE
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff John Shek has moved to "set aside" this Court's order denying his motion to disqualify or recuse Judge William Alsup. Mr. Shek has offered no cognizable legal basis for relief. Nonetheless, the Court shall construe Mr. Shek's moving papers as seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-9. Having considered the papers filed and accompanying submissions, as well as all other evidence of record, the Court hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons set forth below.
I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are more fully set forth in this Court's prior order. See Docket No. 56. In relevant part, the Court's prior order denied Mr. Shek's motion to disqualify or recuse Judge William Alsup. Mr. Shek now moves to "set aside Judge Edward Chen's Order Denying Plaintiff (John Shek)'s Motion to Disqualify or Recuse Judge William Alsup." This motion is purportedly made "pursuant to Rule 10B Sec.2.01[sic]."
"Rule 10B Sec.2.01 [sic]" does not appear to correspond to a substantive or procedural rule of law. Mr. Shek has thus failed to identify a cognizable legal basis for relief. Nonetheless, this Court will construe Mr. Shek's motion (Docket No. 58) as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's interlocutory order denying his motion to disqualify or recuse, pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-9.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
A motion for reconsideration is "an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly." Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration will not be granted "unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." See id. Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, the moving party must specifically show:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.
N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 7-9 (emphasis added).
B. Analysis
Mr. Shek has failed to make the requisite showing under Civil Local Rule 7-9 to justify the "extraordinary remedy" of reconsideration. Specifically, Mr. Shek identifies no new facts or law nor does he contend this Court manifestly failed to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Rather, Mr. Shek seeks to impugn the impartiality of the undersigned judge. Mr. Shek alleges, for example, that the undersigned judge was a "Union Lawyer" with "strong tied [sic] with Union [sic] and N.L.R.B." See Docket No. 58 (Mot., at pg. 2). This is not a cognizable basis for reconsideration. Furthermore, the assertion is factually baseless. Accordingly, Mr. Shek's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Mr. Shek's motion for reconsideration, styled as a motion to "set aside Judge Edward Chen's Order Denying Plaintiff (John Shek)'s Motion to Disqualify or Recuse Judge William Alsup."
This order disposes of Docket No. 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
