Benjamin Joseph Ligeri v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00764
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 BENJAMIN JOSEPH LIGERI, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00764-JHC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF 12 v. RECUSAL (DKT. NO. 40) 13 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC et al., 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on United States District Judge John Chun’s denial 17 (Dkt. No. 40) of Plaintiff’s second motion for his recusal (Dkt. No. 38). Local Civil Rule 3(f) 18 provides that “whenever a motion to recuse directed at a judge of this court is filed pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455” and the “challenged judge decides not to voluntarily 20 recuse” herself, he must “direct the clerk to refer the motion to the chief judge.” Plaintiff’s 21 motion for recusal seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1). (Dkt. No. 38 at 1.) 22 Accordingly, this Court now reviews Judge Chun’s decision not to recuse. 23 24 1 Motions for recusal are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C § 455. Recusal is 2 required if the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); see 3 also Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993). This is an objective inquiry 4 focused on the appearance of impartiality. Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir.

5 1992). Recusal is also required in specific situations, including where the judge “has a personal 6 bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts 7 concerning the proceeding.” Id. Such bias or prejudice must derive from more than standard 8 disagreements with court rulings. Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984). 9 The basis for Plaintiff’s recusal motion is that Judge Chun erred by compelling 10 arbitration. (Dkt. No. 38 at 2–5.) As Judge Chun explained in his order denying the recusal 11 motion, this is not evidence of bias nor a valid basis for recusal. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; 12 United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff’s motion describes case law 13 he believes Judge Chun failed to consider (see id. at 4–5), but those arguments go to the merits of 14 the ruling and again are not a proper basis for recusal. See Downs v. California Atty. Gen., 639

15 F. App'x 435, 436 (9th Cir. 2016) (district court did not err in denying disqualification of 16 magistrate judge, because “disagreement with the magistrate judge's rulings does not provide a 17 basis for recusal”); see also Gandolfo v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., No. CV 22-00246 LEK-KJM, 18 2023 WL 6392429, at *3 (D. Haw. Oct. 2, 2023) (“mere disagreement with the rulings cannot 19 serve as a valid basis for recusal.”). 20 Plaintiff also argues that “the fact that the judge comes from a background that is in love 21 with the arbitration forum” requires recusal. (Dkt. No. 38 at 4.) However, as this Court noted in 22 its previous order affirming denial of recusal, these “assertions concerning Judge Chun’s 23

24 1 background and perspective are unfounded assumptions that cannot support a motion for 2 recusal.” (Dkt. No. 22 at 3.) 3 Plaintiff has presented no arguments or evidence that could reasonably call Judge Chun’s 4 impartiality into question. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS Judge Chun’s denial (Dkt. No. 40)

5 of Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (Dkt. No. 38.) 6 Dated this 21st day of October, 2025. 7 A 8 David G. Estudillo 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24