Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04662/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04662-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY—No. C-06-04662 RMW

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-filed on 11/6/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THERESA B. BRADLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

YAHOO, INC.,

Defendant.

No. C-06-04662 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISQUALIFY

[Re Docket Nos. 18]

Plaintiff Theresa Bradley moves to disqualify the undersigned under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)

and "renews" her application to proceed without payment of the filing fee. For the reasons given

below, the court denies the motion in toto.

I. BACKGROUND

Bradley filed a suit against defendant Yahoo, Inc., alleging that Yahoo had prevented her

from accessing her Yahoo accounts. In her complaint, Bradley alleges fraud, breach of fiduciary

duty, professional negligence, and "intentional interference with advantageous business

relationship."

Bradley also filed an application for leave to proceed without paying the filing fee. Dkt.

# 2. The court denied Bradley's application, dkt. # 14, and Bradley moved for reconsideration of

that denial, dkt. # 10. The court denied Bradley's motion for reconsideration, and, as noted in the

Case 5:06-cv-04662-RMW Document 19 Filed 11/06/06 Page 1 of 4
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 1

 The court notes this is at odds with the assertion in the fax that Bradley filed the motion about ten

days prior to November 3, 2006.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY—No. C-06-04662 RMW

JAH 2

court's October 31, 2006 order, had in two prior orders instructed Bradley to pay the filing fee

under two slightly different schedules. Dkt. # 16. The court later clarified that Bradley should

follow the order giving her the greater period of time to pay the filing fee. Id. Bradley therefore

had until November 3, 2006 to pay $275 of the fee, and until December 1, 2006 to pay the

balance.

Yahoo moved to dismiss Bradley's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief

could be granted, and scheduled the motion for hearing at 9 a.m. on November 3, 2006. Dkt. # 7. 

Bradley had previously requested leave of court to appear via telephone. Dkt. # 5. 

On the morning of November 3, 2006, Bradley faxed to the court a document entitled

"REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF HEARINGS WITH NOTIFICATION OF PRIOR

FILING OF MOTION FOR RECUAAL [sic] AND DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE WITH

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT." According to this fax, Bradley stated that she had

filed a motion to disqualify the undersigned "approximately 10 days prior," but no such filing had

yet been received by the court. When the hearing for Yahoo's motion to dismiss came on, the

court telephoned Bradley at the number she had provided, but no one answered.

On October 29, 2006, Bradley had apparently e-mailed a copy of the motion to disqualify

to counsel for Yahoo. The attorney for Yahoo had brought a copy of the motion to the hearing and

provided it to the court. Based on both the absence of any properly-filed motion as well as the

lack of merit of the motion to disqualify evident from the copy Yahoo's attorney provided, the

court proceeded with the hearing on Yahoo's motion to dismiss, which will be addressed in a

separate order. The court received Bradley's motion to disqualify later in the day; it was identical

in substance to the copy provided by Yahoo and, according to the signature page, was signed on

October 30, 2006.1

II. ANALYSIS

In her motion to disqualify, Bradley asserts that while the undersigned denied her motion

to proceed without paying the filing fee, Judge William Alsup, who is presiding over Bradley v.

Case 5:06-cv-04662-RMW Document 19 Filed 11/06/06 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY—No. C-06-04662 RMW

JAH 3

Google, Inc., No. C-06-05289, granted her leave to proceed without payment of the filing fee. 

Bradley, however, is mistaken. Judge Alsup had not ruled on Bradley's application to proceed

without payment of the filing fee at the time she made her motion to disqualify; that application

was instead denied on November 6, 2006.

To the extent Bradley's motion is based merely upon the denial of her application to

proceed without payment of the filing fee, adverse rulings are not an adequate basis for recusal. 

Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, Bradley's motion to

disqualify fails on its face and is denied. 

The court has considered and reconsidered Bradley's application to proceed without

payment of the filing fee. Her renewed application to proceed without payment of the filing fee is

denied. Bradley has not paid the filing fee by the deadline set in the October 31, 2006 order. 

Given that the court has, however, already held a hearing on the merits of Yahoo's motion to

dismiss, the court will allow Bradley a further extension of the time in which to pay the initial

portion of the filing fee. Bradley shall pay the first $275 of the filing fee by November 17, 2006

and the balance by December 1, 2006 or face dismissal of this action.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court denies 

1. Bradley's motion to disqualify; and

2. Bradley's renewed application to proceed without payment of the filing fee but

extends the payment deadline for the first $275 to November 17, 2006.

DATED: 11/6/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04662-RMW Document 19 Filed 11/06/06 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY—No. C-06-04662 RMW

JAH 4

A copy of this order was mailed on to:

Plaintiff (pro se):

Theresa B. Bradley 

4500 Connecticut Avenue NW 

Suite 209 

Washington, DC 20008 

Counsel for Defendant:

Kirsten Joy Daru; Michele D. Floyd 

Reed Smith LLP 

Two Embarcadero Center 

Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:06-cv-04662-RMW Document 19 Filed 11/06/06 Page 4 of 4