Manchanda v. Lane

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 12, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-07637
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Manchanda v. Lane, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------X

RAHUL MANCHANDA AND MRS. SYLWIA

EWELINA MANCHANDA,

Plaintiffs,

- against - ORDER

AUSA DANA WALSH, AUST GREGORY ZIPES, 23 Civ. 7637 (NRB) SEAN LANE, SDNY Bankruptcy Judge,

LAW CLERK SARAH ROSENTHAL, LAW CLERK

JACQUELINE TRAN, LAW CLERK CHRISTINE

AZZARO, COURTROOM DEPUTY LIZA EBANKS, MICHAEL DRUCKMAN, BRETT E. LEWIS, LAW FIRM LEWIS & LIN LLC, DAVID D. LIN, AND DR. DOUGLAS SENDEROFF,

Defendants. ------------------------------------X NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff’s letter, dated October 6, 2023, requesting that the Court recuse itself from this case. This case, like all new cases in this District, was randomly assigned to this Court. See Rule 4(b), Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges. Once a case is assigned, “there is no process by which a party can request ‘reassignment’ based on a preference, a dislike of a particular judge, or a disappointment with a judge’s rulings.” James v. State Univ. of New York, No. 22 Civ. 4856, 2023 WL 3006104, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2023). A party may request that a judge recuse herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). However, “there exists a strong presumption of a judge’s impartiality which may only be overcome by adequate proof to the contrary.” Wiltshire v. Williams, No. 10 Civ. 6947,

2012 WL 899383, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2012). Plaintiff’s suggestion that this Court should be disqualified based on a single case management order it issued is clearly insufficient to overcome the strong presumption of impartiality. See Watkins v. Smith, 561 F. App’x 46, 47 (2d Cir. 2014) (holding that plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with a district court’s “case management decisions is not a basis for recusal”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is denied.

Dated: October 12, 2023 New York, New York _ NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Related

Watkins v. Smith
561 F. App'x 46 (Second Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Manchanda v. Lane, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manchanda-v-lane-nysd-2023.