Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08024/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08024-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony J. Kuc, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America, NA, successor by

merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing LP;

Bank of America Corp., successor in

interest to Countrywide Bank; Saxon

Mortgage Services, Inc.; Old Republic

National Title Insurance Co.; Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems Inc.

("MERS"), 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-08024-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motions for removal and disqualification (doc. 23)

and default judgment (doc. 24). No responses were filed, and the time for responding has

expired.

Plaintiff originally filed this action in the Superior Court of Arizona in Mohave

County asserting various claims relating to a trustee's sale noticed on his home. Defendant

Old Republic removed (doc. 1). We denied plaintiff's multiple motions for default judgment

(doc. 20). On April 16, 2012, we denied plaintiff's motion to remand, granted Bank of

America, N.A., Bank of America Corp., and MERS's motion to dismiss, and granted Old

Republic's motion to dismiss (doc. 21). The Clerk entered judgment in favor of defendants

the same day (doc. 22).

Case 3:12-cv-08024-FJM Document 30 Filed 05/22/12 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Plaintiff moves for our recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Pursuant to § 455(a), a judge

"shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned." To determine whether recusal is needed, we ask "whether a reasonable person

with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably

be questioned." United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation

omitted). "The 'reasonable person' is not someone who is 'hypersensitive or unduly

suspicious,' but rather is a 'well-informed, thoughtful observer.'" Id. (quoting In re Mason,

916 F.2d 384, 386 (7th Cir. 1990)).

Plaintiff alleges that our denial of his motions for default judgment reflect favoritism

towards defendants and defendants' counsel. He questions whether we in fact signed our

order, as our signature is hand-printed. He believes that defendants had no defense to his

motions for default judgment because, as business entities, they are fictional and thus do not

exist to defend themselves. In essence, plaintiff alleges that we have shown prejudice and

bias by deciding the action in favor of defendants and have violated his rights to discovery

and due process. 

We can understand plaintiff's frustration at having his action removed to a forum

where he did not choose to litigate (a forum that he vigorously disputed has jurisdiction over

this matter), which then entered adverse rulings against him. A prior adverse ruling,

however, is not sufficient cause for recusal because the alleged prejudice does not stem from

an extrajudicial source. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986). Instead,

§ 455(a) usually requires "something other than rulings, opinions formed or statements made

by the judge during the course of trial." Holland, 519 F.3d at 913-14. In the "rarest

circumstances," conduct during judicial proceedings may provide the basis for recusal when

the facts show "a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment

impossible," although these situations are "[a]lmost invariably. . . proper grounds for appeal,

not for recusal." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994).

This is not one of those rare cases. Plaintiff has not presented facts that would lead

a reasonable person to conclude that fair judgment was impossible due to favoritism. All we

Case 3:12-cv-08024-FJM Document 30 Filed 05/22/12 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

did was rule on motions in good faith. The accuracy of those rulings is subject to review by

a litigant's timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for disqualification is denied. We further deny plaintiff's

motion for default judgment, as the Clerk has already entered judgment in favor of

defendants.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for removal and disqualification

(doc. 23). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for default

judgment (doc. 24).

We urge plaintiff to seek the advice of a lawyer. Only a lawyer can properly evaluate

plaintiff's position and take whatever steps may be necessary to protect plaintiff's interests.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2012.

Case 3:12-cv-08024-FJM Document 30 Filed 05/22/12 Page 3 of 3