Banga v. Lustig
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-09825
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Banga v. Lustig, Judge Engelmayer denied Banga’s motion to remove Magistrate Judge Netburn from the case.
Kamlesh Banga’s request to remove Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn from further proceedings was denied; the motion was closed.
What happened
In Banga v. Lustig, Kamlesh Banga asked the court to remove Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn from further proceedings and assign a different magistrate judge. Banga relied on federal recusal law and the constitutional requirement of an impartial tribunal.
Banga argued that Magistrate Judge Netburn had previously found that Banga filed the lawsuit in bad faith and had recommended dismissing the case. Banga also argued that Judge Engelmayer’s earlier ruling found that at least one claim was timely and legally viable, which Banga said contradicted the bad-faith finding.
Judge Engelmayer denied the recusal motion. The order directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion listed at Docket 72; the provided text does not give further reasons for the denial.
The detailed version
- Banga v. Lustig · No. 1:22-cv-09825
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 24, 2025
Motion and requested relief
Kamlesh Banga, appearing without a lawyer, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to have Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recuse herself from all further proceedings. Banga asked the court to order her recusal, reassign the matter to another magistrate judge, and grant other appropriate relief.
Banga’s grounds
Banga’s motion stated that the case had been returned to the district court on July 18, 2025, after a Second Circuit decision addressing jurisdictional issues. Banga argued that, during the earlier district-court proceedings, Magistrate Judge Netburn made adverse findings about Banga’s character, good faith, and motivations.
The motion relied especially on an October 30, 2023 Report and Recommendation. According to Banga, that recommendation stated that Banga had filed the lawsuit in bad faith and had brought it in an effort to avoid an adverse California court decision. Banga argued that these findings created an objectively reasonable appearance of bias under Section 455(a), which requires recusal when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Banga also pointed to a December 20, 2023 ruling by Judge Engelmayer. The motion said that ruling found that the amended complaint plausibly alleged a timely claim for injunctive relief based on a March 12, 2020 request. Banga argued that this ruling contradicted the earlier bad-faith characterization and showed that continued participation by Magistrate Judge Netburn would create an appearance of partiality.
Disposition
Judge Engelmayer denied the motion for recusal. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion pending at Docket 72. The provided text does not state the court’s reasons for denying the motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.