Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01062/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01062-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARY C. RICHARDS and GREGORY DAVID

FRANCESCO GIORGI,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-01062 CW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR RECUSAL AND

MOTION TO VACATE

ORDER RELATING CASES

(Docket Nos. 9 and

12)

On March 17, 2010, Defendants Mary C. Richards and Gregory

David Francesco Giorgi filed a Motion for Recusal of a Judicial

Officer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4). Thereafter, Defendants

moved to vacate the Court’s order relating this action to their

prior cases, asserting the same arguments contained in their motion

for recusal. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4), judges must recuse themselves if

they have “a financial interest in the subject matter in

controversy or in a party to the proceeding.” The judge to whom a

motion under § 455 is addressed decides whether recusal is

necessary. Bernard v. Coyne, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Judges need not take allegations as true. See United States v.

Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1202 (7th Cir. 1985); cf. United States

Case 4:10-cv-01062-CW Document 15 Filed 04/15/10 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

v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 740 (9th Cir. 1978) (finding bare

allegation insufficient to sustain disqualification under 28 U.S.C.

§ 144). 

Defendants allege that the undersigned owns “private

investments in the banking industry.” Mot. at 1. However, they

present no evidence explaining why they believe this to be true. 

Even if it were, it would not support a claim of a financial

interest in the subject matter of the proceeding or a party, such

as Bank of America. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for recusal

(Docket No. 9) and motion to vacate the related case order (Docket

No. 12) are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-01062-CW Document 15 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BANK OF AMERICA, NA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RICHARDS, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV10-01062 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 15, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing said copy

in a postage paid envelope addressed to the persons hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Mary C. Richards

Gregory David Francesco Giorgi

126 Stadium Avenue

Mill Valley, CA 94941-3593

Dated: April 15, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: M. Pilotin, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:10-cv-01062-CW Document 15 Filed 04/15/10 Page 3 of 3