Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-04262
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Hazari v. Superior Court, Judge White granted shortened time but denied requests for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and judge disqualification.
Cyrus Hazari and the defendants in the case were affected. The ruling kept the October 31, 2024 deadline for obtaining summonses and serving the defendants in place and allowed the case to proceed before the same judge.
What happened
In Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Cyrus Hazari asked the court to pause further action in the case, extend a service deadline, and disqualify the presiding judge. He also asked for repeated stays because he had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.
The court reviewed Hazari’s requests for disqualification under federal laws governing judicial bias. It found that he had not shown legally sufficient grounds for disqualification and that his challenges were based on the judge’s conduct or rulings in the case, not an outside source. The court also declined to change the deadline for obtaining summonses and serving the defendants.
Judge Jeffrey White granted Hazari’s motion to shorten time but denied the motions for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and disqualification. The October 31, 2024 deadline remained in place, and the court stated that failure to meet it would result in dismissal of the case.
The detailed version
- Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County · No. 4:21-cv-04262
- Jeffrey White
- Oct. 11, 2024
Background
The court considered Cyrus Hazari’s motion to shorten time, motions for a temporary restraining order, and motion for a preliminary injunction and disqualification. Hazari had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and had asked for repeated stays so that he could fully participate in the litigation.
Hazari’s temporary restraining order request argued that the court should be barred from taking further action in the case. His requests for temporary and preliminary relief also sought relief from the October 31, 2024 deadline to obtain proposed summonses and serve the defendants. The court had set that deadline after Hazari filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2024.
Disqualification request
The court considered 28 U.S.C. § 144, which addresses judicial disqualification based on a timely and sufficient affidavit alleging personal bias or prejudice. Under the court’s cited authorities, the judge assigned to the case may first decide whether the request is legally sufficient. The court again concluded that Hazari had not shown that disqualification was warranted under Section 144.
The court also considered 28 U.S.C. § 455, which requires a judge to disqualify himself when his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court explained that, under the authorities it cited, this generally requires bias from an outside source rather than conduct or rulings during the proceeding. It found that Hazari’s challenges were not based on an outside source, so Section 455 did not provide a basis for disqualification.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to shorten time because of impending deadlines. It denied the motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to the extent they sought relief from the service deadline. It also denied the motion for disqualification.
The October 31, 2024 deadline to obtain summonses and serve the defendants remained in effect. The court stated that if Hazari failed to comply with that deadline, it would dismiss the case, and that Hazari could seek appellate relief from the court’s orders.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.