Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00845/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00845-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227 FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales

---

1

19cv845-CAB-LL

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTON EWING,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALIERA HEALTHCARE,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv845-CAB-LL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE MOTION FOR 

RECUSAL OF THE HONORABLE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[ECF No. 23]

On July 29, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an “Ex Parte Motion For Recusal 

of the Honorable Magistrate Judge.” ECF No. 23. On July 30, 2019, Defendant filed an 

opposition. ECF No. 26. Plaintiff requests that the undersigned Magistrate Judge recuse 

herself from this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). ECF No. 23 at 1. In support of 

Plaintiff’s request, he states that during the July 19, 2019 Early Neutral Evaluation 

Conference (“ENE”) in this case, “each side spoke with the Magistrate Judge for several 

hours, alone, and without the other party being present.” Id. Plaintiff argues that these were 

“res ipsa, ex parte communications.” Id. Plaintiff further argues: 

[The undersigned] Magistrate Judge may have displayed the appearance of 

bias and an appearance of prejudice when the Honorable Magistrate (1) 

provided defense counsel Rackers with legal advice to file an ex parte motion 

regarding emailing and deemed the brief post-ENE conversation as a meet 

Case 3:19-cv-00845-CAB-LL Document 27 Filed 07/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv845-CAB-LL

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

and confer, and (2) allowed defense counsel Francis to appear in court in San 

Diego as an attorney for Defendant Aliera when in fact he is, and was not

admitted to practice law in this State or in this District, either via pro hac vice 

or bar admission. 

Id. at 2 (emphasis in original). Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to set forth any 

credible grounds for recusal of the undersigned Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 26. 

Section 455(a) provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United 

States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably 

be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Section 455(b)(1) provides that “[h]e shall also 

disqualify himself . . . [w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or 

personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 

28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). The standard under Section 455 is “whether a reasonable person 

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

reasonably be questioned.” Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(citations omitted). A “reasonable person” is defined as a “well-informed, thoughtful 

observer,” as opposed to a “hypersensitive or unduly suspicious person.” Clemens v. U.S. 

Dist. Ct. for Central Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005). The Ninth Circuit 

has also noted that “rumor, speculation, beliefs, conclusions, innuendo, suspicion, opinion, 

and similar non-factual matters” are not enough to require recusal. Id. (citing 

Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 351 (10th Cir. 1995)). 

Here, Plaintiff's allegations stem from the fact that the undersigned Magistrate Judge 

spoke with the respective parties during the ENE conference “alone, and without the other 

party being present.” ECF No. 23 at 1. As set forth in the Court’s Order Setting the ENE: 

The purpose of the ENE is to permit an informal discussion between the 

attorneys and the settlement judge of every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort 

to achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference discussions will be 

informal, off the record, privileged, and confidential.

ECF No. 7 at 1. Additionally, as the undersigned Magistrate Judge explained to the parties 

at the outset of the July 19, 2019 ENE, in order to facilitate settlement discussions in most 

cases, she meets with the parties together as a group and also individually throughout the 

Case 3:19-cv-00845-CAB-LL Document 27 Filed 07/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv845-CAB-LL

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

conference. Notably, at the time of the ENE conference, Mr. Ewing did not object to the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge meeting with the parties individually and actively 

participated in the conference. 

Additionally, Mr. Ewing’s allegation that “Judge Lopez allowed a non-admitted 

attorney, Dwight Francis, to be in chambers without Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s assistant” is not 

an adequate basis for recusal. Mr. Francis is a partner at Sheppard Mullin, which is the 

same law firm as Defendant’s attorney of record in this case, Mr. Mark Rackers.

See Docket; see also https://www.sheppardmullin.com/dfrancis. Mr. Francis represented 

to the Court at the outset of the ENE conference that he is an attorney for Aliera Healthcare. 

In light of the fact that he is a partner at the same law firm as lead counsel, Judge Lopez

exercised her discretion to allow him to participate in the ENE conference.1 Finally, 

Plaintiff’s allegation that Judge Lopez provided defense counsel with legal advice to file a 

motion is wholly inaccurate and a misrepresentation of the facts. “It has long been 

established . . . that a party cannot force a judge to recuse himself by engaging in personal 

attacks on the judge.” Standing Comm. On Discipline of the United States Dist. Court For 

Cent. Dist. Of Cal. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 1443 (9th Cir. 1995). 

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show any adequate basis for recusal 

under Section 455. As such, and in light of the facts and evidence presented, no reasonable 

person would question this Court’s impartiality. Because “a judge has ‘as strong a duty to 

sit when there is no legitimate reason to recuse as he does to recuse when the law and facts 

require,’” the undersigned Magistrate Judge declines to recuse in this matter. See Clemens, 

428 F.3d at 1179. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Recuse is DENIED. 

/ / /

/ / /

 

1 Similarly, Judge Lopez exercised her discretion to exclude the woman who accompanied Plaintiff at the 

ENE conference who Plaintiff claimed is his assistant because she is not a party to the litigation nor an 

attorney representing her client. See Docket. 

Case 3:19-cv-00845-CAB-LL Document 27 Filed 07/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv845-CAB-LL

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00845-CAB-LL Document 27 Filed 07/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4