Edwards v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, 15-cv-05778-VC. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180320933
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION Re: Dkt. No. 123 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . The plaintiff's letter brief, filed on March 16, 2018, seeks clarification on whether the motion to disqualify should be considered by another judge of this Court. In denying the motion to disqualify, this Court determined, pursuant to Local Rule 3-14 (which applies to motions filed on the basis of 28 U.S.C. 144), that referral of the motion to disqualify to another judge was not warranted because: (i)
Summary: ORDER RE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION Re: Dkt. No. 123 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . The plaintiff's letter brief, filed on March 16, 2018, seeks clarification on whether the motion to disqualify should be considered by another judge of this Court. In denying the motion to disqualify, this Court determined, pursuant to Local Rule 3-14 (which applies to motions filed on the basis of 28 U.S.C. 144), that referral of the motion to disqualify to another judge was not warranted because: (i) g..
More
ORDER RE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Re: Dkt. No. 123
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
The plaintiff's letter brief, filed on March 16, 2018, seeks clarification on whether the motion to disqualify should be considered by another judge of this Court. In denying the motion to disqualify, this Court determined, pursuant to Local Rule 3-14 (which applies to motions filed on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 144), that referral of the motion to disqualify to another judge was not warranted because: (i) given the timing of the motion and the context in which it was brought (namely, in the context of the dogged and ongoing efforts by counsel for the plaintiff to avoid going to trial), it is clear that the motion was brought for the purposes of delay, and (ii) counsel's affidavit was facially insufficient to lead a reasonable person to question whether Edwards will be able to receive a fair trial (as explained in the Court's previous ruling).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
