Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80111/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80111-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTEL CORPORATION LEGAL 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-mc-80111-RS 

ORDER VACATING PRIOR ORDER 

AND FOR REASSIGNMENT

Plaintiff in this action is subject to a pre-filing review order. This case file was opened on 

May 19, 2016, when plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a new civil complaint against the 

named defendants. The matter was assigned to the undersigned, who issued an order directing the

Clerk not to accept the complaint for filing and dismissing the action.

In Case No. 16-mc-80103 plaintiff has now filed an “Affidavite” [sic] and “Certificate of 

Good Faith,” in which he seeks recusal of the undersigned in both that case and this one. An order 

has issued in Case No. 16-mc-80103 denying the motion for recusal in that case for reasons 

explained in the order.

The grounds on which plaintiff seeks recusal in this action are not entirely clear, but

appear to include (1) the undersigned’s stock ownership in Intel Corporation; (2) the 

undersigned’s former association with Morrison & Foerster, a law firm that purportedly has 

represented Intel, and with which the judge named as a defendant in the proposed complaint was 

also once associated, and; (3) the ruling issued in this case.

Case 3:16-mc-80111-EMC Document 7 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 16-mc-80111-RS

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 California

Neither the undersigned’s former association with Morrison & Foerster nor the ruling 

issued in this case presents a basis for recusal. As the proposed complaint seeks to assert claims 

against Intel Corporation and/or its “legal department,” however, the undersigned’s stock 

ownership in Intel presents a basis for automatic recusal. That the matter was assigned to, and was 

acted on by, the undersigned occurred through administrative error. Accordingly, the order 

rejecting the complaint and dismissing the case filed on May 24, 2016 (Dkt. No. 6) is hereby 

VACATED. The matter shall be assigned to a new judge for purposes of considering and ruling 

on the motion for leave to file the proposed complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-mc-80111-EMC Document 7 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 2