Chang v. Vanderwielen

W.D. Washington

Chang v. Vanderwielen

DecidedApril 18, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00013

StatusUnknown

This text of Chang v. Vanderwielen (Chang v. Vanderwielen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chang v. Vanderwielen, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 VICKI CHANG, CASE NO. C22-0013-JCC-SKV 10 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 11 v. 12 ANDREW VANDERWIELEN, et al., 13 Defendant. 14

15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of a new judge (Dkt. No. 35), 18 which the Court interprets as a motion to recuse. Having thoroughly considered the issue, and for 19 the reasons described below, the motion is DENIED. 20 A federal judge must “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality 21 might reasonably be questioned,” “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 22 party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 23 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), (b)(1). A judge must disqualify under these provisions if “a reasonable person 24 with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be 25 questioned.” Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 742 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014) 26 (quoting Persnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008)). “Absent a factual showing 1 of a reasonable basis for questioning his or her impartiality, or allegations of facts establishing 2 other disqualifying circumstances, a judge should participate in cases assigned.” Maier v. Orr, 3 758 F.2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “Conclusory statements” or a party’s “unsupported beliefs 4 and assumptions” do not require a judge to recuse. Id. 5 Plaintiff asks for the assignment of a judge unaffiliated with the University of 6 Washington because of Defendant Riddhi Kothari’s affiliation with the institution. (See Dkt. No. 7 35 at 1.) While this Judge does, in fact, serve as an adjunct lecturer at the University of 8 Washington School of Law, he donates all compensation received to the institution. Therefore, 9 the Court concludes that it has no financial interest in this matter. And it further concludes that 10 its impartiality cannot be reasonably questioned. 11 Accordingly, the Honorable John C. Coughenour, U.S. District Judge, DECLINES to 12 voluntarily recuse but REFERS the motion to Chief Judge Martinez under LCR 3(f) for further 13 consideration. 14 15 DATED this 18th day of April 2022. Ravi Subramanian 16 Clerk of Court 17 s/Sandra Rawski 18 Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 VICKI CHANG, CASE NO. C22-0013-JCC-SKV 10 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 11 v. 12 ANDREW VANDERWIELEN, et al., 13 Defendant. 14

15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of a new judge (Dkt. No. 35), 18 which the Court interprets as a motion to recuse. Having thoroughly considered the issue, and for 19 the reasons described below, the motion is DENIED. 20 A federal judge must “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality 21 might reasonably be questioned,” “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 22 party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 23 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), (b)(1). A judge must disqualify under these provisions if “a reasonable person 24 with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be 25 questioned.” Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 742 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014) 26 (quoting Persnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008)). “Absent a factual showing 1 of a reasonable basis for questioning his or her impartiality, or allegations of facts establishing 2 other disqualifying circumstances, a judge should participate in cases assigned.” Maier v. Orr, 3 758 F.2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “Conclusory statements” or a party’s “unsupported beliefs 4 and assumptions” do not require a judge to recuse. Id. 5 Plaintiff asks for the assignment of a judge unaffiliated with the University of 6 Washington because of Defendant Riddhi Kothari’s affiliation with the institution. (See Dkt. No. 7 35 at 1.) While this Judge does, in fact, serve as an adjunct lecturer at the University of 8 Washington School of Law, he donates all compensation received to the institution. Therefore, 9 the Court concludes that it has no financial interest in this matter. And it further concludes that 10 its impartiality cannot be reasonably questioned. 11 Accordingly, the Honorable John C. Coughenour, U.S. District Judge, DECLINES to 12 voluntarily recuse but REFERS the motion to Chief Judge Martinez under LCR 3(f) for further 13 consideration. 14 15 DATED this 18th day of April 2022. Ravi Subramanian 16 Clerk of Court 17 s/Sandra Rawski 18 Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chang v. Vanderwielen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chang-v-vanderwielen-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack