Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04894/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04894-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Ferial Karen Ardalan,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Macy’s West, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 09-04894 JW 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECUSAL

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s letter to the Court seeking Judge Ware’s recusal from

the case on the ground that he is biased against Plaintiff and pro se litigants generally. In light of

Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court liberally construes her letter as a Motion for Recusal pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455. 

Requests for recusal are governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Under both statutes, recusal

is appropriate where “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the

judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626

(9th Cir. 1993). Recusal is justified “either by actual bias or the appearance of bias.” Id. A district

court judge must disqualify himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably

be questioned” or where “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal

knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 445. 

Here, Plaintiff bases her Motion primarily on the following representations: (1) in a prior

unrelated case before this Court in which Plaintiff was also acting in pro se, Judge Ware posed a

question to Plaintiff during the hearing on the defendants’ summary judgment motion that

Case 5:09-cv-04894-JW Document 41 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

“surprised” her and caused her “intense distress”; (2) in an ex parte conversation with one of Judge

Ware’s clerks in the same prior case, the clerk told Plaintiff that Judge Ware would not rule in her

favor against the government; (3) Plaintiff believes that Judge Ware will not rule in favor of a pro se

litigant. (See Motion for Recusal at 1-2, 6.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s unsupported

representations do not warrant recusal from the action. Most of the alleged events that Plaintiff

describes in her Motion occurred in a prior unrelated litigation against a different defendant. The

mere possibility that the Court favored the government in Plaintiff’s prior case has no bearing in the

present case, which Plaintiff brings against a private corporate entity and an individual. Neither the

Court’s questioning of Plaintiff during oral argument nor the Court’s subsequent ruling against

Plaintiff on the merits indicate any bias against Plaintiff. Moreover, Plaintiff’s uncorroborated

account of an out-of-court statement allegedly made by a clerk cannot by itself justify recusal. 

Plaintiff’s naked assertions of the Court’s bias are insufficient to reasonably call its objectivity into

question. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal.

Dated: August 9, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-04894-JW Document 41 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Robert Jerry Schnack schnackr@jacksonlewis.com

Ferial Karen Ardalan

P.O. Box OD

Pacific Grove, CA 93950

Dated: August 9, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:09-cv-04894-JW Document 41 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 3