Preview:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendant. 15 16 The Court, having received and reviewed: 17 18 19 Motion to Chief Judge Pursuant to W.D.WA. GR 8(C) 20 and all attached declarations and exhibits, makes the following ruling: 21 IT IS ORDERED the motion to disqualify is DENIED. 22 23 24
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE KIM GASKILL, Plaintiff, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO. C11-5847 RJB ORDER ON MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE

1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Judge (Dkt. No. 30) 2. Order Declining Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Judge (Recuse) and Directing

1

The standards for recusal are set forth in Judge Bryan's order of January 3, 2012.

2 Although a judge must recuse himself if a reasonable person would believe that he is unable to 3 be impartial (Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993)), a litigant may 4 5 (9th Cir. 1986)). 6 7 This motion to disqualify arises out of Judge Bryan's Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. Dkt. No. 20. Plaintiffs claim that the order creates the impression that Judge Bryan not use the recusal process to remove a judge based on adverse rulings in the pending case: the alleged bias must result from an extrajudicial source (United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939

8 has "pre-judged a number of issues of importance in this case, including specifically issues of 9 personal jurisdiction." Dkt. No. 30, p. 1. Plaintiffs allege that the Court reached its decision to 10 deny remand without reviewing their reply brief, and further assert that the Court held that 11 service on Defendants was invalid. Id., p. 3. 12 13 14 Plaintiffs had the ultimate responsibility to identify the proper party Defendant; id.). More 15 16 significantly in the context of a motion to recuse, a judge's conduct in the context of pending judicial proceedings does not constitute the requisite bias under 28 U.S.C.

Download 46672.pdf

Washington Law