Foregger v. Redfin Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTINA FOREGGER, Case No. 24-cv-05701-HSG (JD)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR 9 v. DISQUALIFICATION

10 REDFIN CORPORATION, Defendant. 11

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Christina Foregger filed four requests to disqualify Judge Haywood Gilliam 14 from presiding over her case, Foregger v. Redfin Corp., Case No. 24-cv-05701-HSG. See Dkt. 15 Nos. 44, 46 58, 59. The first request was made on a California state court complaint form and did 16 not specify a federal statute or rule as a basis for disqualification. Dkt. No. 44 at ECF 3-4. The 17 second, third, and fourth requests also did not specify a federal basis for disqualification. Dkt. 18 Nos. 46, 58, 59. Even so, the Court reads the requests with a generous eye in light of plaintiff’s 19 pro se status. Disqualification is denied. 20 The rule in our circuit is that a judge should handle the cases assigned to him or her unless 21 a legitimate reason for disqualification exists. United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th 22 Cir. 2008). Legitimate reasons for disqualification are identified in two statutes -- 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 455 and 144 -- and Canon 3(C) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Section 24 455(a) provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify 25 himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. 26 § 455(a); see also id. § 455(b)(1) (disqualification proper when judge “has a personal bias or 27 prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 1 the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against [the moving party] or in favor 2 of any adverse party.” Id. § 144. A party seeking disqualification under Section 144 must file “a 3 timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias 4 or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party.” Id. Section 144 expressly 5 conditions relief upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient affidavit. See United States v. 6 Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 865 (9th Cir. 1980). Section 3(C) of the Code of Conduct permits 7 disqualification for the same substantive reasons as Sections 144 and 455. 8 While the procedure for motions under Section 144 and Section 455 is slightly different, 9 the governing standard is the same. Nat’l Abortion Fed’n v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 257 F. Supp. 10 3d 1084, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2017). “Our circuit has held that ‘[t]he test for personal bias or 11 prejudice in section 44 is identical to that in section 455(b)(1).’” Id. (alteration in original) 12 (quoting Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867). “Consequently, where, as here, the only question is whether a 13 district judge should be removed from a case for personal bias or prejudice under Sections 144, 14 455(a), and 455(b)(1), the ‘same substantive standard will be applied to each section.’” Id. 15 (citation omitted). “The standard is an objective one and asks ‘whether a reasonable person with 16 knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be 17 questioned.’” Id. (quoting Holland, 519 F.3d at 913-14). “The reasonable person for this inquiry 18 is not someone who is hypersensitive or unduly suspicious, but rather is a well-informed, 19 thoughtful observer.” Id. (cleaned up). 20 Plaintiff Foregger has not demonstrated any basis for disqualification. To start, Foregger 21 did not file a timely and sufficient affidavit for purposes of Section 144, and so that statute is not 22 in play. See Sibla, 624 F.2d at 865. Overall, Foregger did not identify any facts that even 23 remotely would allow a reasonable person to conclude that Judge Gilliam’s impartiality could be 24 questioned. Foregger’s only stated reason for seeking disqualification is that Judge Gilliam “did 25 not turn in Taylor Neff,” who appears to be an attorney, “for handling a whistleblower’s lawsuit in 26 the State of California where she does not have California attorney license” and so “attempting to 27 cover up for unethical attorneys.” Dkt. Nos. 58 at ECF 2; 59 at ECF 2. That is not a grounds for 1 disqualification under Sections 144 or 455, or Judicial Canon 3(C). No reasonable person would 2 || conclude otherwise. 3 Foregger’s lawsuit before Judge Gilliam is in a very early stage, and she has already filed 4 || four requests to disqualify Judge Gilliam and two motions to disqualify counsel for defendant 5 || Redfin. See Dkt. Nos. 44, 46, 48, 57-59. Foregger is advised that these filings needlessly multiply 6 || the expenditure of judicial and party resources on claims fairly characterized as frivolous. Further 7 || frivolous filings may result in termination of Foregger’s ECF filing privileges, and other sanctions. 8 No new requests to disqualify Judge Gilliam on the contentions already stated will be accepted for 9 filing. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: June 30, 2025 12

4 DONATO 5 Unitd@f States District Judge 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28