Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01163/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01163-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MARY C. RICHARDS and GREGORY DAVID

FRANCESCO GIORGI,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; CAL WESTERN

RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION; and

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR MARIN COUNTY,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-01163 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR RECUSAL

(Docket No. 23)

On June 10, 2010, Plaintiffs 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). Although accompanied

by an affidavit, their current motion for recusal contains the

identical argument to one filed on March 17, 2010 in a related

case. See Bank of Am. v. Richards, No. 10-1062, Docket No. 9 (N.D.

Cal.). 

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.” “Ownership in a

mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a

‘financial interest’ in such securities unless the judge

Case 4:10-cv-01163-CW Document 28 Filed 08/13/10 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

participates in the management of the fund.” Id. § 455(d)(4). 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). 

As in their March 17 motion, Plaintiffs allege that the

undersigned owns “private investments in the banking industry.”

Mot. at 1. In this motion, they cite the undersigned’s financial

disclosure report. They do not, however, identify any financial

interests that would warrant recusal. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal (Docket No. 23) is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-01163-CW Document 28 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY C. RICHARDS and GREGORY

DAVID FRANCESCO GIORGI,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA N.A., et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV10-01163 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 August 13, 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.

GREGORY DAVID FRANCESCO GIORGI

126 Stadium Avenue

Mill Valley, CA 94941

Mary C. Richards

126 Stadium Avenue

Mill Valley, CA 94941

Dated: August 13, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: MP, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:10-cv-01163-CW Document 28 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 3