Home/Ninth Circuit/Constantino Basile v. the Los Angeles Film School

Constantino Basile v. the Los Angeles Film School

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 26, 2023
Docket21-56266
StatusUnpublished

This text of Constantino Basile v. the Los Angeles Film School (Constantino Basile v. the Los Angeles Film School) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Constantino Basile v. the Los Angeles Film School, (9th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CONSTANTINO BASILE, No. 21-56266

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-08604-CJC-ADS

v. MEMORANDUM* THE LOS ANGELES FILM SCHOOL, LLC, DBA The Los Angeles Film School; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

U.S. DISTRICT COURT-CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION; et al.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Constantino Basile appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment

orders striking his motion for recusal and denying his motions for reconsideration.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion. Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 769 n.11 (9th Cir. 2008) (district

court’s management off its own docket); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or.

v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for

reconsideration). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Basile’s motion for

disqualification because the motion was duplicative and failed to establish

extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (setting forth circumstances

requiring disqualification); United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453-54

(9th Cir. 1997) (under § 455, the substantive standard for recusal is whether “a

reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s

impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (citation and internal quotation mark

omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Basile’s motions for

reconsideration because Basile set forth no valid grounds for reconsideration. See

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for

reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60).

Basile’s motions to transmit exhibits (Docket Entry Nos. 3 & 4) are denied.

2 21-56266 Defendant City of Beverly Hills’s request for an order to show cause why

sanctions should not be imposed, as set forth in its answering brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 21-56266

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

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Robert HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
109 F.3d 1450 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Preminger v. Peake
552 F.3d 757 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Constantino Basile v. the Los Angeles Film School, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/constantino-basile-v-the-los-angeles-film-school-ca9-2023.