Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03050/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03050-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANI SUBRAMANIAN,

Plaintiff,

 V

QAD INC, WILLIAM D CONNELL, AND

DOES 1-50

Defendants.

 /

No C 06-3050 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff, Mani Subramanian, appearing pro se, brought

suit against defendant QAD Inc alleging copyright infringement and

other claims. Plaintiff now seeks that the undersigned recuse

himself from this case. Doc #44. For the reasons stated below,

the court DENIES plaintiff’s request.

 In pertinent part, the court issued an order on June 22,

2005 (“order”), remanding and dismissing plaintiffs’ numerous

claims against defendant QAD and others, save one claim that was

stayed pending state court resolution. Vedatech, Inc et al v St

Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co et al, 2005 WL 1513130 (ND Cal

Case 3:06-cv-03050-VRW Document 90 Filed 04/17/07 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

2005). In the order, the court imposed sanctions pursuant to FRCP

11 upon plaintiffs, including Subramanian, for frivolous filings

and for other conduct. Id at 11. 

Plaintiff alleges that the order creates an appearance of

bias requiring recusal of the undersigned pursuant to 28 USC

§ 455(a). Doc #44. Specifically, plaintiff argues that the

order’s language casts plaintiff in a negative light creating an

appearance of judicial partiality. Id at 3. In part, plaintiff

quotes the court’s description of plaintiff’s “reprehensible

conduct” and “apparent anger” and the court’s censure of

plaintiff’s unwarranted legal contentions. Id. Plaintiff further

argues that the court’s prior rulings “disregard * * * the

evidence” thus forming “factual reasons to create the appearance”

of bias. Id at 4. The court disagrees. 

Section 455(a) requires a judge to “disqualify himself in

any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned.” Because plaintiff does not allege that the

undersigned relied on extrajudicial knowledge, the relevant inquiry

under § 455(a) is whether opinions formed in the current or prior

proceedings “display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that

would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v United States, 510

US 540, 555 (1994). “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never

constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Id. 

The language plaintiff quotes is appropriate to the FRCP

11 rulings. The court was required to evaluate the validity and

reprehensibility of plaintiff’s conduct in light of FRCP 11. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court in Liteky clearly exempts judicial

“expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance and even

Case 3:06-cv-03050-VRW Document 90 Filed 04/17/07 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

3

anger” from hostility requiring recusal under §455(a). Liteky, 510

US at 555-56. The language identified by plaintiff is well within

this exemption or simply not indicative of hostility or bias.

Plaintiff’s argument that rulings unfavorable to him in

the prior action create the appearance of bias is untenable. 

However strong plaintiff feels his arguments were in the prior

action, the court’s disagreement does not connote bias.

Plaintiff explicitly excludes from his motion allegations

of “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party” under

§ 455(b)(1). The court notes, however, that the circumstances

argued by plaintiff in support of the § 455(a) motion provide no

evidence of actual bias on the part of the undersigned; nor is the

undersigned in fact partial toward or against either party.

Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. The parties are to report

to the court by letter on or before June 25, 2007 regarding the

status of their settlement efforts. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03050-VRW Document 90 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 3