Perez v. Essentia Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GRACIELA PEREZ, Case No. 23-cv-06077-VC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR v. DISQUALIFICATION AND MOTION TO REMAND ESSENTIA INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, 18 Defendants. The motions to disqualify and the motion to remand are denied. This ruling assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, the applicable legal standard, and the arguments made by the parties. 1. The motions to disqualify are denied as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 , 455. By themselves, adverse judicial rulings or critical remarks typically do not establish bias or prejudice. Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038 , 1043–44 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 , 555–56 (1994). And the comments made toward Perez’s attorney in a prior case do not come close to displaying the sort of hostility that would warrant recusal. See United States v. Burt, 765 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th Cir. 1985). Because Perez’s declaration fails to state a valid basis for recusal, it is not legally sufficient. United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735 , 738–40 (9th Cir. 1978). So the motion seeking disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 144 will not be reassigned under Rule 3-14 of the Civil Local Rules. 2. The motion to remand is also denied as frivolous. Based on the insurance documents that Essentia submitted, if Perez prevails on her breach of contract claim, then presumably she could recover $80,000—the amount listed as the guaranteed value of her allegedly stolen vehicle. That sum alone would satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, without even considering possible damages for alleged emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees spent to recover insurance benefits allegedly withheld in bad faith. See, e.g., Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co., 63 Cal. 4th 363, 372 (2016). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 17, 2024 VINCE CHHABRIA. United States District Judge