Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05632/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05632-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KRISHNA REDDY,

 

Plaintiff,

v.

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

(Re: Docket No. 267)

Plaintiff Krishna Reddy (“Reddy”) requests that the trial scheduled to begin in four days be 

taken off calendar.1 This request is DENIED. Instead, this case is dismissed with prejudice for 

failure to prosecute. Furthermore, the court shall entertain a motion by Defendant Nuance 

Communications, Inc. for fees and costs incurred since the final pretrial conference.

I.

28 U.S.C. § 144 provides for recusal where a party files a “timely and sufficient affidavit 

that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against 

him or in favor of any adverse party.” The affidavit must state the facts and reasons for such belief 

and “shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good 

 

1

See Docket No. 267 at 2:8-11.

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 268 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

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

faith.”2 The “judge against whom an affidavit of bias is filed may pass on its legal sufficiency.”

3

If the judge finds the Section 144 motion is timely and the affidavit is legally sufficient, the judge 

must proceed no further and another judge must be assigned to hear the matter.4 However, where 

the affidavit is not legally sufficient, recusal is denied.5 

To be legally sufficient, an affidavit must “specifically allege[] facts that fairly support the 

contention that the judge exhibits bias or prejudice . . . that stems from an extrajudicial source.”

6

 

“Adverse rulings do not constitute the requisite bias or prejudice of § 144.”

7

 Moreover, while the 

judge “is generally required to accept the truth of the factual assertions in” a Section 144 affidavit, 

this is not the case where the allegation of bias “relates to facts that [are] peculiarly within the 

judge’s knowledge.”

8

 In those situations, where “the judge knows the allegations to be false, 

recusal is unnecessary.”

9

Since June of this year, this case has been scheduled for trial on September 8, 2015.10 

Nonetheless, a bare eleven days before trial, Reddy filed a Section 144 affidavit requesting that the 

 

2

Id.

3 United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1978).

4

See id.

5

See United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. $292,888.04 in 

U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995); Walker v. Hedgpeth, Case No. C 09–05055 SBA 

(PR), 2009 WL 4676227, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

6 United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980).

7

Azhocar, 581 F.2d at 739.

8

Ronwin v. State Bar of Arizona, 686 F.2d 692, 701 (9th Cir. 1981) rev’d on other grounds sub 

nom. Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U.S. 558, (1984).

9 Greenfield v. Brenner, No. CV-05-5120-LRS, 2006 WL 776772, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 23, 

2006) (citing Ronwin, 686 F.2d at 701).

10 See Docket No. 248 at 1:22.

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 268 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

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

undersigned both recuse himself and take the trial off calendar.11 The court denied both requests, 

finding that the Section 144 affidavit was legally insufficient.

12

 Reddy again moved to have the

trial taken off calendar, arguing that the court improperly weighed the truth or falsity of her Section 

144 allegations.13 She also stated that she was “unable to travel to San Jose for trial” due to “health 

reasons” and the “defective” condition of her “27-year-old car.”

14

 The court also denied this 

request to delay the trial.

15

 Yesterday, Reddy notified the court that she had filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and once more requested that the 

court take the trial—now five days away—off calendar.16

II.

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).17

III.

Reddy’s request is denied as follows.

First, in its earlier order, the court properly evaluated the legal sufficiency of the Section 

144 affidavit. Reddy’s allegations of bias repeated arguments made in her preceding three motions 

for recusal, and were based on the court’s prior orders in this case and another case that Reddy had

 

11 See Docket No. 261 at 9:5-9.

12 See Docket No. 263.

13 See Docket No. 264 at 4:19-6:15, 6:16-7:17.

14 Id. at 7:3-4.

15 See Docket No. 266.

16 See Docket No. 267 at 2:1-11.

17 See Docket No. 17; Docket No. 121.

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 268 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

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

before the court.

18

 Those orders variously denied Reddy’s previous motions for the 

disqualification of the undersigned; granted Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss; declared Reddy 

a vexatious litigant; and stated that the undersigned was neither related to Defendants’ counsel nor 

advising Defendants on trial strategy.

19

 The Ninth Circuit is clear that allegations of bias or 

prejudice in a Section 144 affidavit may not rest on the court’s prior adverse rulings against the 

affiant, making Reddy’s affidavit legally insufficient.

20

 

Second, to the extent that the court once more considered the truth of the allegations that 

the undersigned is related to Defendants’ counsel and advising Defendants on trial strategy, the 

court properly did so. Those allegations “relate[] to facts that [are] peculiarly within the judges’

knowledge,”

21 and because the court knows these allegations to be false, “recusal is 

unnecessary.”

22

 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit specifically addressed allegations similar to Reddy’s in 

Ronwin v. State Bar of Arizona. There, as here, the Section 144 affidavit alleged that the judge had 

engaged in ex parte communications with defense counsel.23 The Ninth Circuit ruled that the judge 

was within his discretion in denying the Section 144 motion, since the alleged facts indicating the 

judge’s prejudice “were peculiarly within the judge’s knowledge.”

24

Third, Reddy has made it abundantly clear that she has no interest in appearing for trial or 

otherwise prosecuting her case. 

 

18 See Docket No. 263 at 3:3-4.

19 See id. at 3:6-4:5.

20 Azhocar, 581 F.2d at 739.

21 Ronwin, 686 F.2d at 701.

22 Greenfield, 2006 WL 776772, at *3.

23 See 686 F.2d at 701.

24 Id.

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 268 Filed 09/04/15 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

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 Ninth Circuit, a district court must weigh the following factors in deciding to dismiss 

a case for failure to prosecute: “[1] the court’s need to manage its docket, [2] the public interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation, [3] the risk of prejudice to defendants from delay, [4] the policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits.”

25

 “[T]he failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient 

by itself to justify a dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant 

from the failure.”

26

 Whatever interest there may be in disposing of any case on the merits, here the 

other factors overwhelmingly favor dismissal. The court twice warned Reddy that she was 

expected to be present and ready for trial on Tuesday, September 8, 2015, and that failure to appear 

could result in sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice or costs.

27

 Reddy’s response was to 

file two requests to take the trial off calendar, and state that she was unable to come to trial.28 

Consistent with her history as a vexatious litigant,29 Reddy’s litany of excuses and ad hominem 

attacks makes clear she has no interest in pursuing the merits of her claims in this case. At the 

same time, the court has no interest in wasting the time and expense of prospective jurors and 

 

25 Citizens Utilities Co. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 595 F.2d 1171, 1174 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. 

denied, 444 U.S. 931 (1979).

26 Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

27 See Docket No. 263 at 4:17-23; Docket No. 266 at 1:21-23.

28 See Docket No. 264; Docket No. 267.

29 See Reddy v. MedQuist, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-01324-PSG (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 16, 

2012) at Docket No. 121 (order declaring Reddy vexatious litigant), aff’d sub nom. Reddy v. Cbay 

Sys. Holdings, Ltd., 584 F. App’x 411, 412 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied sub nom. Reddy v. 

MedQuist, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2056 (2015); see also Reddy v. Homeside Lending, Inc., et al., Case No. 

CV 99-4431 ABC (SH) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2001) (ordering Clerk of the Court not to accept filings 

from Reddy against various entities arising out of her termination of employment), aff’d, Case No. 

01-55812 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2001); Reddy v. Superior & Municipal Court of California of San 

Bernardino, et al., Case No. CV SA 97-923-AHS (SH) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 1998) (ordering Clerk 

of the Court not to accept filings from Reddy against various entities arising out of her termination 

of employment), aff’d sub nom. Reddy v. Stotler, 114 F. App’x 905 (9th Cir. 2004); Reddy v. 

Redlands Community Hospital, et al., Case No. SCV 06542 (San Bernardino Cty. Super. Ct. Nov. 

21, 1996) (Superior Court order declaring Reddy vexatious litigant).

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 268 Filed 09/04/15 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

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

everyone else associated with the trial. The taxpayers that fund our courts deserve better than that. 

Reddy’s case therefore is dismissed with prejudice.

IV.

Reddy’s case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court invites 

Defendant to submit a motion for fees and costs incurred since the final pretrial conference.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 268 Filed 09/04/15 Page 6 of 6