Paige v. Digital Business Networks Alliance
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-03169
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Paige v. Digital Business Networks Alliance, Judge Karas denied Paige’s fifth motion to recuse, finding she identified no conduct requiring recusal.
Michele Paige’s request to remove Judge Kenneth M. Karas from the case was denied; the ruling concerned the judge’s continued participation and did not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In In re: Paige v. Digital Business Networks Alliance, Inc. et al., Michele Paige asked Judge Kenneth M. Karas to step aside from the case. She argued that his decisions in this case and an unrelated case created an appearance of bias against women.
Paige also argued that the court’s rulings about where she could sue the defendants showed an unexplained contradiction. She requested recusal or an opportunity to submit fuller briefing.
Judge Karas denied the motion again. He said Paige had not identified conduct requiring recusal, and that citing decisions in unrelated cases and disagreeing with those decisions did not justify recusal.
The detailed version
- Paige v. Digital Business Networks Alliance · No. 7:24-cv-03169
- Kenneth Karas
- Oct. 6, 2025
Background
Michele Paige, representing herself, filed what the document identifies as her fifth motion to recuse Judge Kenneth M. Karas. Recusal means a judge steps aside from a case because impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Paige argued that the motion was not based on disagreement with the merits of the judge’s decisions.
Paige relied on Judge Karas’s opinion in an unrelated case and on his decisions in this case. She argued that the decisions involved different facts but reached results she viewed as inconsistent regarding where female employees could sue their employers. According to Paige, the only common fact between the cases was the plaintiffs’ gender, which she said created the appearance of gender bias. She also argued that the court’s rulings raised unresolved questions about which state had specific jurisdiction over her case. Paige requested that the court recuse itself or allow her to brief the issue further.
Ruling
Judge Karas denied the motion again. The court stated that Paige had failed to identify any conduct by the court that called for recusal. It further stated that citing the court’s decisions in other, unrelated cases and expressing disagreement with those decisions did not justify recusal. The clerk was directed to mail the document to Paige.
Disposition
The court denied Paige’s fifth motion to recuse. The opinion does not state that the underlying claims were resolved by this ruling.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.