Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80103/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-mc-80103-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Alsup
Defendant
Michael A. Bruzzone
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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.

WILLIAM ALSUP,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-mc-80103-RS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECUSAL

Plaintiff in this closed matter has filed an “Affidavite” [sic] and “Certificate of Good 

Faith,” in which he seeks recusal of the undersigned on grounds that are not entirely clear, but 

which 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 the defendant in this case was also once 

associated, and; (3) the ruling issued in this case. Although plaintiff’s dispute with the judge 

named as the defendant in this case apparently grows out of an underlying dispute involving Intel, 

the undersigned’s stock ownership in a non-party is not a basis for recusal. Likewise, the 

undersigned’s past association with Morrison & Foerster does not create a basis for recusal in 

cases involving clients of that firm, even if this were such a case, which it is not. Nor does the fact 

that the undersigned and the judge named as a defendant were both partners in that firm many 

years ago give rise to a conflict requiring recusal. 

Finally, although plaintiff may disagree with the legal ruling issued in this case, that is not 

Case 3:16-mc-80103-RS Document 13 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 16-mc-80103-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

a basis for recusal. Accordingly, the motion for recusal is denied.

Plaintiff’s filing also seeks recusal of the undersigned in Case No. 16-MC-80111. A 

separate order will issue in that action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-mc-80103-RS Document 13 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 2