Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05632/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05632-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 144 AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION AND NOTICE OF

INTENT

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KRISHNA REDDY,

 

Plaintiff,

v.

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 144 

AFFIDAVIT OF 

DISQUALIFICATION AND NOTICE 

OF INTENT

(Re: Docket Nos. 261, 262)

Before the court are Plaintiff Krishna Reddy’s (“Reddy”) notice of intent to call the 

undersigned and Satsang Singh Khalsa (“Khalsa”), an attorney for Defendants, as hostile witnesses 

at trial, and Reddy’s 28 U.S.C. § 144 affidavit requesting recusal of the undersigned.1 Reddy’s 

request to call the undersigned and Khalsa as witnesses is DENIED.2 Because Reddy’s Section 

 

1 Reddy previously filed a notice of intent to call the undersigned and Khalsa as hostile witnesses, 

as well as a total of three motions for disqualification in both this case and another case that was 

before the court, Reddy v. Medquist, Inc. See Docket No. 214; Docket No. 152; Docket No. 193; 

Case No. 5:12-cv-01324-PSG (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2012) at Docket No. 129. Each such 

motion was denied. See Docket No. 165; Docket No. 222; Case No. 5:12-cv-01324-PSG (N.D. 

Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2012) at Docket No. 133.

2

See Docket No. 175 at 5:1-5.

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 263 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 144 AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION AND NOTICE OF

INTENT

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

144 affidavit relies on the same reasoning provided in earlier motions to disqualify that were 

deemed meritless, Reddy’s Section 144 motion for recusal also is DENIED.

I.

28 U.S.C. § 144 provides for recusal where a party 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.” The affidavit must state the facts and reasons for such belief 

and “shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good 

faith.”3 If the judge finds the Section 144 motion is timely and the affidavit is legally sufficient, 

the judge must proceed no further and another judge must be assigned to hear the matter.4 

However, where the affidavit is not legally sufficient, the judge to whom the motion is directed 

may determine the matter, and recusal is denied.5 An affidavit is legally insufficient if it fails to 

allege “facts that fairly support the contention that the judge exhibits bias or prejudice toward the 

affiant that stems from an extrajudicial source.”

6

 This is a high bar: “[t]he requirements of § 144 

are strictly construed to prevent abuse, because the statute is heavily weighted in favor of recusal.”7 

II.

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).8

 

3

Id.

4

See id.

5

See United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. $292,888.04 in 

U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995); Walker v. Hedgpeth, Case No. C 09–05055 SBA 

(PR), 2009 WL 4676227, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

6 United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980).

7 Marks v. Askew, Case No. C 11-3851 SBA, 2012 WL 70623 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012); Hoffman v. 

Caterpillar, Inc., 368 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2004).

8

See Docket No. 17; Docket No. 121.

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 263 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 144 AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION AND NOTICE OF

INTENT

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

III.

Reddy’s motions fail as follows.

First, Reddy’s Section 144 affidavit repeats the reasoning provided in similar motions to 

disqualify the undersigned in this case and in Medquist.

9

The primary difference between the 

instant motion and the prior motions is that the prior motions were brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

455.10 Her allegations of bias are otherwise the same. Namely, Reddy alleges that the undersigned 

is biased against her based on his earlier rulings, including the order granting Defendants’ partial 

motion to dismiss and denying Reddy’s cross-motion, the orders denying Reddy’s earlier motions 

for disqualification, and an order in her case against Medquist declaring her a vexatious litigant.11 

Because these rulings were based on facts introduced in the course of the respective proceedings, 

they do not offer grounds for recusal.12

Second, Reddy again claims that the undersigned improperly incorporated the arguments of 

her adversaries verbatim, without considering her arguments, due to bias or prejudice against her.13 

Because Reddy’s assertions about what the undersigned did and did not consider are not correct, 

this basis remains insufficient to warrant recusal.

Third, Reddy claims yet again that the undersigned and one of the attorneys representing 

Defendants share common religious beliefs, and therefore must be related by blood.14 As 

 

9 Cf. Docket No. 261 with Docket No. 152; Docket No. 193; Case No. 5:12-cv-01324-PSG (N.D. 

Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2012) at Docket No. 129.

10 Cf. Docket No. 261 at ¶ 2 with Docket No. 152 at 1; Docket No. 193 at 2; Case No. 5:12-cv01324-PSG (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2012) at Docket No. 129 at .

11 See Docket No. 261 at ¶¶ 8, 10-13.

12 See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). See also Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868. 

13 See Docket No. 261 at ¶ 8.

14 See id. at ¶¶ 3, 6.

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 263 Filed 09/02/15 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 144 AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION AND NOTICE OF

INTENT

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

previously stated by both the undersigned and the attorney, this claim is false.

15

 The undersigned is 

not related to the Defendants’ attorney in any way.

Fourth, this is the second notice of intent to call the undersigned as a hostile witness, on the 

grounds that he issued an order deeming her a vexatious litigant, and that the court appears to be 

advising the Defendants on their trial strategy.16 Once again, Reddy is mistaken: the court is not 

advising anyone on trial strategy. In addition, Reddy may not call the presiding judge or opposing 

counsel as witnesses, hostile or otherwise, as neither possesses personal knowledge of evidence 

relevant to the issues to be tried. Furthermore, Reddy failed to identify either the undersigned or 

Khalsa on her list of witnesses to be called in the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement.17

IV.

Reddy has failed to show facts fairly supporting her contention that the undersigned 

exhibits bias or prejudice toward her stemming from an extrajudicial source. Her Section 144

affidavit and request for recusal accordingly is DENIED. Her request to call the undersigned and 

Khalsa as hostile witnesses, and thereby secure recusal of the undersigned, also is DENIED. 

Finally, trial is scheduled to begin next Tuesday, September 8, 2015. The court expects all parties 

to be present in the courtroom next Tuesday, September 8, 2015, at 8 a.m., and jury selection will 

begin promptly at 9 a.m. The parties are warned that if for any reason trial does not proceed as 

scheduled, and the jury is summoned for no purpose, the court will hold the party responsible for 

the delay by taxing the amount of full costs. The court also may impose further sanctions as 

necessary.

 

15 See Docket No. 165 at 3; Docket No. 160 at 2.

16 See Docket No. 262 at 2; see also Docket No. 214 (stating Reddy’s intent to call the undersigned 

and counsel for the defendants as hostile witnesses at trial).

17 See Docket No. 175 at 5:1-5.

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 263 Filed 09/02/15 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C. § 144 AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION AND NOTICE OF

INTENT

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

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 263 Filed 09/02/15 Page 5 of 5