Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01279/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01279-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INTEL CORPORATION and ARM, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-01279 WHA

ORDER DENYING

REQUEST FOR RECUSAL

An August 19, 2014 order granted Intel Corporation’s motion to declare pro se Michael

Bruzzone a vexatious litigant (Dkt. No. 88). Bruzzone did not attend the hearing on the motion.

Buzzone’s five motions for reconsideration of that order were each denied. Bruzzone has now

filed a motion titled “Request for Judge Alsup Recuse Himself from Case C 14 01279 Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 144.” He has filed an affidavit in support of his request. 

Section 144 of Title 28 of the United States Code states (emphasis added):

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and

files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom

the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against

him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no

further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such

proceeding.

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that

bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days

before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be

heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within

such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It

shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating

that it is made in good faith.

Case 3:14-cv-01279-WHA Document 108 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Bruzzone previously filed an affidavit and moved to disqualify the undersigned in June

2014 (Dkt. No. 54). The motion was referred to another judge, who denied it (Dkt. No. 58). 

Bruzzone’s second motion for recusal is procedurally improper and is hereby DENIED.

The pre-filing review order shall remain in place.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-01279-WHA Document 108 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 2