Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00838/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00838-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY-ANN GSCHWEND,

Appellant,

 v.

BARBARA G. MARKUS,

Appellee. /

No. C 07-00838 JSW

ORDER RE APPELLANT’S

REQUEST FOR RECUSAL

On October 17, 2007, Appellant Mary-Ann Gschwend filed a request before Chief Judge

Vaughn R. Walker to remove the undersigned judge from the above-captioned matter. This

Court construes Appellant’s request as a motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Section 455 imposes an affirmative duty upon

judges to recuse themselves when “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). A motion for disqualification based entirely from the

district court judge’s adverse ruling is not an adequate basis for recusal. Leslie v. Grupo ICA,

198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing numerous cases for the same proposition). In Liteky

v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, the Supreme Court explained the narrow bases upon which

a party may move for recusal:

Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or

partiality motion ... [O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts

introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or

of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality

motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that

would make fair judgment impossible. 

Case 3:07-cv-00838-JSW Document 30 Filed 11/29/07 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

The provisions of Section 455 “require recusal only if the bias or prejudice stem from an

extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding.” 

Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Appellant contends that the undersigned judge is subject to recusal because: (1) in

denying her request for a stay pending appeal, this Court found that she had not demonstrated

that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her appeal; and (2) the Court must have considered

ex parte communications with Appellee because the Court resolved the request for a stay before

Appellant had filed her brief regarding the appeal. The Court has not had ex parte

communications with either party. The Court merely considered the papers filed regarding the

requested stay. Appellant’s contentions stem entirely from the Court’s prior adverse rulings,

and thus, are not adequate bases for recusal. See, e.g., United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d

1450, 1454 (9th Cir. 1997); Taylor v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 993 F.2d 710, 712-13

(9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Appellant’s motion for recusal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00838-JSW Document 30 Filed 11/29/07 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA GAIL MARKUS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARY ANN GSCHWEND et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-00838 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on November 29, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter

listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an

inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Elliott Abrams

Law Offices of Elliott Abrams

2033 N. Main Street

#750

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Mary Ann Gschwend

4402 Marsh Elder Court

Concord, CA 94521

Dated: November 29, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-00838-JSW Document 30 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 3