Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01283/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01283-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

Case No. C 10-1283 JF (HRL)

ORDER STRIKING PURPORTED MOTION FOR RECUSAL

(JFLC3)

**E-Filed 4/9/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TUAN HAI DANG, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

HSBC BANK USA; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; EXECUTIVE

TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC; and GMAC

MORTGAGE, LLC, 

 Defendants.

Case Number C 10-1283 JF (HRL)

ORDER STRIKING PURPORTED 1

MOTION FOR RECUSAL

On March 31, 2010, Plaintiff Kim Dang filed a pleading entitled “Recusal of Judge for

Cause and True Bill for Judge’s Acts.” Plaintiff seeks to recuse the undersigned judge on the

basis of alleged bias against William Bullock Stewart III, a non-attorney who purports to act as

Plaintiffs’ counsel in this action as a “private attorney general.” Treating Plaintiff’s pleading as a

motion for recusal, the Court finds that the motion is frivolous and finds no support in federal

law. To succeed on a motion for recusal, a party must comply with the procedural requirements

of 28 U.S.C. § 144. The party also must demonstrate that a “reasonable person with knowledge

Case 5:10-cv-01283-JF Document 15 Filed 04/09/10 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

Case No. C 10-1283 JF (HRL)

ORDER STRIKING PURPORTED MOTION FOR RECUSAL

(JFLC3)

of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted). A judge’s ruling on a contested matter rarely may serve

as a basis for recusal. Liteky vs. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). 

The pleading is hereby stricken.

DATED: 4/9/2010

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-01283-JF Document 15 Filed 04/09/10 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

Case No. C 10-1283 JF (HRL)

ORDER STRIKING PURPORTED MOTION FOR RECUSAL

(JFLC3)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Tuan Hai Dang

c/o R.A. Guancione

Notary Acceptor

POB 641641

San Jose, CA 95164 

Doris Buu

c/o R.A. Guancione

Notary Acceptor

POB 641641

San Jose, CA 95164 

Kim Dang

c/o R.A. Guancione

Notary Acceptor

POB 641641

San Jose, CA 95164 

Kenny Kieu

c/o R.A. Guancione

Notary Acceptor

POB 641641

San Jose, CA 95164 

Cassie Buu

c/o R.A. Guancione

Notary Acceptor

POB 641641

San Jose, CA 95164

Case 5:10-cv-01283-JF Document 15 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 3