Rodionova v. Qatar Airways Group (Q.C.S.C.)

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IANA RODIONOVA, Case No. 25-cv-05838-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. DISQUALIFY

10 QATAR AIRWAYS GROUP (Q.C.S.C.), et Re: Dkt. No. 11 al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Iana Rodionova’s Motion to Disqualify Judge for 14 Cause Under 28 U.S.C. § 455. ECF No. 11. 15 Section 455 requires a judge to recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality 16 might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), including where the judge “has a personal 17 bias or prejudice concerning a party,” id. § 455(b)(1).1 The standard for disqualification is 18 “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s 19 impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th 20 Cir. 2008). “A judge should not disqualify herself when the facts do not warrant disqualification, 21 as there is an equally compelling obligation not to recuse where it is not appropriate.” Firsov v. 22 Frontier Airlines, Inc., 2025 WL 1533138, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2025) (citing Holland, 519 23 F.3d at 912 (“We are as bound to recuse ourselves when the law and facts require as we are to hear 24 cases when there is no reasonable factual basis for recusal.”)). 25 “A federal judge is presumed to be impartial, and the burden is therefore on the party 26 seeking recusal to overcome this presumption.” Washington v. United States, 2023 WL 7351836, 27 1 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2023) (citing Saddozai v. Davis, 2019 WL 13216339, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2 || Aug. 26, 2019)). 3 Plaintiff argues disqualification is appropriate because the undersigned denied her motion 4 || to seal her in forma pauperis application, which “is confidential under California Rules of court. 5 Rule 3.50-3.63.” Mot. at 1. But that rule applies only to California state court. Plaintiff also 6 argues good cause exists to seal her application, but the Court already considered and denied this 7 argument in its order denying her motion to seal. ECF No. 9. Regardless, any “alleged bias must 8 stem from an ‘extrajudicial source.’” United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1454 (9th Cir. 9 1997) (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-56 (1994)). Thus, judicial rulings are not 10 a valid basis for a motion for disqualification. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; Rodionova v. Qatar 11 || Airways Grp. (Q.C.S.C.), 2025 WL 1870775, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2025) (denying 12 || Rodionova’ motion to disqualify based on failure to seal in forma pauperis application). While 5 13 || judicial rulings may constitute grounds for an eventual appeal, they are not a valid basis for a 14 motion for recusal. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 3 15 1984) (“A judge’s previous adverse ruling alone is not sufficient bias.”); McCoy v. Stronach, 2021 a 16 || WL 1479839, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021) (denying plaintiff's motion for disqualification 3 17 based on adverse ruling on motion). S 18 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: July 30, 2025 22 7 LU \ : Lj THOMAS S. HIXSON 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28