Straw v. Avvo Inc

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 ANDREW U.D. STRAW, CASE NO. C20-0294JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 AVVO, INC., 13 Defendant. 14

15 Before the court is a referral notice from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (9th 16 Cir. No. 21-35848 (Dkt. # 6)) requesting that this court determine whether Plaintiff 17 Andrew U.D. Straw’s in forma pauperis status should continue during his appeal or 18 whether his appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (“An 19 appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is 20 not taken in good faith.”); see also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). An appeal is frivolous if 21 it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 22 (1989). 1 On August 27, 2020, the court granted Avvo’s motion to dismiss Mr. Straw’s 2 amended complaint and granted Mr. Straw leave to amend. (See 8/27/20 Order (Dkt.

3 # 44).) Mr. Straw filed his second amended complaint on August 28, 2020. (See 2d Am. 4 Compl. (Dkt. # 45).) On November 9, 2020, the court granted Avvo’s motion to dismiss 5 Mr. Straw’s second amended complaint—this time with prejudice and without leave to 6 amend—because Mr. Straw did not address the deficiencies identified in the court’s prior 7 order. (See 11/9/20 Order (Dkt. # 55); see also Judgment (Dkt. # 56).) Mr. Straw 8 appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Not. of Appeal (Dkt.

9 # 57).) His appeal is still pending. (See generally Dkt.) 10 On April 2, 2021, Mr. Straw moved for the recusal of the undersigned. (1st Mot. 11 to Recuse (Dkt. # 59).) Chief Judge Ricardo Martinez affirmed the undersigned’s order 12 declining voluntary recusal and denied Mr. Straw’s motion for reconsideration of that 13 order. (See 1st Order Denying Voluntary Recusal (Dkt. # 60); 1st Order Affirming Order

14 Declining to Recuse (Dkt. # 61); 1st Order Denying Mot. to Reconsider (Dkt. # 63).) 15 On October 5, 2021, Mr. Straw again moved for the recusal of the undersigned 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. (See generally 2d Mot. to Recuse (Dkt. # 65).) He argued, 17 as he did in his first motion for reconsideration, that the undersigned must be removed 18 from this case due to “political facts,” including a vast Republican conspiracy against him

19 made up of attorneys at Avvo’s counsel’s law firm; judges in Indiana, the Seventh Circuit 20 Court of Appeals, and this district; and managers of an alleged parent company of Avvo. 21 (See 2d Mot. to Recuse at 1, ¶ 1 (citing 2d Mot. for Reconsideration (Dkt. # 64), Exs. A 22 & B); 2d Mot. for Reconsideration ¶¶ 2, 5-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16, 20.) Mr. Straw also 1 reasserted his prior argument that recusal is necessary because one of this court’s prior 2 law clerks began to work for Avvo’s counsel’s law firm after his clerkship ended. (See

3 2d Mot. for Reconsideration ¶ 21.) 4 The undersigned again declined to voluntarily recuse himself because he “harbors 5 no bias against Mr. Straw or in favor of Avvo or its attorneys.” (2d Order Denying 6 Voluntary Recusal (Dkt. # 67) at 4.) As the court stated in its second order denying 7 voluntary recusal, Mr. Straw’s “‘baseless speculation’ about a Republican conspiracy 8 against him ‘does not serve . . . as a basis for judicial disqualification,’” and “the fact that

9 a former law clerk now works for a law firm that represents a party in a matter before the 10 court does not, without more, provide a basis for recusal.” (See id. (first citing 1st Order 11 Denying Mot. to Reconsider at 2-3; and then citing Omni Innovations LLC v. 12 Smartbargains.com LP, No. C06-1129JCC, 2009 WL 3248084, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 13 9, 2009)).) That same day, Mr. Straw filed a notice of appeal of the court’s second order

14 denying voluntary recusal. (NOA (Dkt. # 68).) 15 Accordingly, the court CERTIFIES that Mr. Straw’s appeal of the court’s second 16 order denying voluntary recusal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. For this reason, 17 Mr. Straw’s in forma pauperis status should not continue during his appeal. Pursuant to 18 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4), the court further DIRECTS the clerk to

19 send a copy of this order to Mr. Straw and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 20 // 21 // 22 // 1 Dated this 8th day of November, 2021. 2 A 3 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22