Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05794/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05794-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Caymas Systems, Inc.
Defendant
Abiodun M. Sodipo
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ABIODUN M. SODIPO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CAYMAS SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-05794 CRB

ORDER

The Court has received Plaintiff’s declaration regarding the alleged bias of this Court. 

See Doc. No. 175. In this declaration, Plaintiff asserts that the Court “erroneously” denied

his motion to transfer this case to the Oakland division based on a mistaken belief that

Plaintiff had filed his motion in the San Francisco division and so must litigate the case there. 

To the extent that the Court’s previous order suggested that Plaintiff was responsible

for the case’s assignment to the San Francisco division because he filed the case in that

particular location, the Court’s previous order was indeed mistaken. Under this Court’s local

rules, however, “all civil actions which arise in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Del

Norte, Homboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo or Sonoma

shall be assigned to the San Francisco Division or the Oakland Division.” Civ. L. R. 3-2(d). 

Thus, under this Court’s rules, cases are assigned between the San Francisco and Oakland

divisions as though these divisions are one and the same.

Case 3:06-cv-05794-CRB Document 177 Filed 05/02/07 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

2

This Court has authority to transfer a case within a division if an assignment is either

improper under the local rules or if “the convenience of parties and witnesses and the

interests of justice will be served by transferring the action.” Civ. L. R. 3-2(f). Although it is

within the Court’s discretion to make such transfers, the Court declined to exercise that

discretion to effect a transfer in this case. At the time of Plaintiff’s transfer request, which

was filed on November 22, 2006, this Court had already become familiar with the facts and

circumstances of the case. Indeed, the Court had already ruled on Plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction, which was heard at Plaintiff’s request on an expedited schedule on

September 29, 2006, as well as Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (on October 5, 2006)

and Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (on November 7, 2006). Having become

familiar with the facts of the case and issued rulings that addressed the merits of the case,

albeit in the context of a preliminary injunction, this Court was disinclined to grant transfer

to a different division. 

The Court’s reluctance to transfer the case to a different judge is especially acute after

it has passed judgment on the merits of a dispute. This reluctance is even stronger where, as

here, the request for transfer is accompanied by a motion to recuse the Court due to rulings

that were adverse to the party seeking the transfer. The Court is aware of, and has taken

steps to accommodate, Plaintiff’s hardship in this case. While such measures have been

inadequate in Plaintiff’s eyes, the Court has been and remains of the view that transfer to the

Oakland division is inappropriate under the circumstances. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s further allegations regarding the bias of the Court are

without merit. The reasons for the Court’s denial of preliminary relief--a decision affirmed

by the Ninth Circuit, and as to which the Supreme Court has declined review--have been set

forth in previous orders. The Court has also previously addressed Plaintiff’s accusations that

Defendant has made fraudulent misrepresentations to deprive Plaintiff of the relief to which

he thinks himself entitled. Those issues will not be revisited here, except to note that

Defendant’s representations in this case in no way compare to perjury committed by a

government witness in a criminal trial, the situation to which Plaintiff compares them. 

Case 3:06-cv-05794-CRB Document 177 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 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

G:\CRBALL\2006\5794\12 - order re recusal.wpd 3

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges this Court has refused to order injunctive relief “as

directed by the US Supreme Court,” Plaintiff simply misreads the Supreme Court’s order. 

That letter merely notes that Plaintiff must seek relief in this Court before taking his request

for relief to higher courts. It does not require this Court to grant such relief, which, for the

reasons set forth in the Court’s previous order, the Court finds inappropriate at this stage of

the proceedings. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s renewed request for recusal of

this Court, is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05794-CRB Document 177 Filed 05/02/07 Page 3 of 3