Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03378-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KRISTIAN M. GERMANI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-03378-EDL 

ORDER 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 22 

This case was closed on February 17, 2015. On February 18, 2015, a third party named 

Donald Collier filed a Motion of a Conflict of Interest in a Previous Matter. This motion refers to 

prior cases that Mr. Collier had in this court. On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document 

entitled Motion of Declination Against Elizabeth D. Laporte Due to a Conflict of Interest. 

It appears that Mr. Collier and Plaintiff seek the Court’s recusal in this closed case. 

Recusal is governed by statute, stating in relevant part: 

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United 

States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following 

circumstances: 

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 

party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts 

concerning the proceeding; 

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the 

matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously 

practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning 

the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness 

concerning it; 

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in 

such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness 

concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the 

merits of the particular case in controversy; 

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his 

spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial 

interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the 

proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected 

Case 3:14-cv-03378-EDL Document 23 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

by the outcome of the proceeding; 

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of 

relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: 

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or 

trustee of a party; 

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; 

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be 

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; 

(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material 

witness in the proceeding. 

28 U.S.C. § 455. This case is now closed so there is no proceeding for the Court to recuse itself 

from. Further, Mr. Collier and Plaintiff have not established that the Court should have recused 

itself under any of these bases. In particular, the Court did not make any substantive rulings in 

Collier’s earlier cases, which were closed well before this case was filed, and Mr. Collier is not a 

party to this case. Further, the Court provided Plaintiff with opportunities to show cause as to why 

her case should not be dismissed, but Plaintiff failed to do so. 

 Plaintiff’s motion also appears to be an attempt to withdraw her consent to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction. Withdrawal of consent in civil cases is only permitted in extraordinary 

circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) 

(“Once a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), the reference can be 

withdrawn by the court only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary 

circumstances shown by any party.’ There is no absolute right, in a civil case, to withdraw consent 

to trial and other proceedings before a magistrate judge.”) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff 

has not pointed to any extraordinary circumstances to justify withdrawal of consent. 

 These motions are denied as moot because this case is closed. Substantively, Mr. Collier’s 

motion is denied on the ground that he is not a party to this case and therefore, cannot file motions 

in this case, as well as on the grounds that this case is closed and there is no conflict of interest 

requiring recusal. Plaintiff’s motion is denied because this case is closed and there is no conflict 

of interest requiring recusal. In addition, Plaintiff’s attempt to withdraw consent is not well-taken. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 4, 2015 

______________________________________ 

Elizabeth D. Laporte 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-03378-EDL Document 23 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 2