Marshall Wexler v. Regents University of California, et al.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:25-cv-00377
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Marshall Wexler v. Regents University of California, Judge Chen denied Wexler’s second recusal motion and motion to amend, leaving the case closed.
Marshall Wexler, whose second recusal motion and motion for leave to amend were denied and whose further filings in the closed case were restricted absent a successful appeal or a directive from the Ninth Circuit.
What happened
In Marshall Wexler v. Regents University of California, Marshall Wexler asked the court to disqualify the judge for a second time and to allow him to amend his complaint after final judgment. The court canceled the scheduled hearings and decided the motions on the papers.
The court denied the recusal request, finding that it was based on factual errors and that the judge had no direct financial ties to the University of California or a family member receiving its health care services. The court also denied the motion to amend because final judgment had already been entered, and because the proposed new claims would be futile, including proposed gender-discrimination and class-action claims.
Judge Edward M. Chen ordered that Wexler may not make additional filings in the case unless he prevails on appeal or the Ninth Circuit directs otherwise. The case remains closed.
The detailed version
- Marshall Wexler v. Regents University of California, et al. · No. 3:25-cv-00377
- Charles Breyer
- Mar. 9, 2026
Background
The court had already entered final judgment, and it had previously denied Wexler’s first motion for recusal and a motion for reconsideration. Wexler then filed a second motion asking the judge to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455, along with another motion for leave to amend the complaint. The court vacated the hearings and resolved both motions without oral argument.
Second Motion for Recusal
The court applied the standard requiring recusal when a reasonable, well-informed person would question the judge’s impartiality. It found that Wexler’s motion relied on several factual errors. In particular, the court stated that the judge had no direct financial ties to the University of California and that no family member received health care services from the University of California as Wexler alleged. The court concluded that recusal was not warranted and denied the second motion for recusal.
Motion for Leave to Amend
The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 did not govern Wexler’s request because final judgment had already been entered. Under the court’s cited precedent, Wexler first needed to reopen the judgment through a motion under Rule 59 or Rule 60. The court noted that Wexler had already filed a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration and that the court had denied it.
The court also stated that it would deny the amendment request even if it considered the proposed claims on their merits. It found the proposed Title IX gender-discrimination theory futile because statements that Wexler was attractive and questions about his dating life were not enough to create a hostile environment based on sex. It also found the proposed class action meritless because the proposed class lacked sufficient commonality, meaning the members did not share enough common issues to justify class treatment.
Disposition
Judge Edward M. Chen denied both motions. The order states that Wexler’s remedy for disagreement with the court’s rulings is an appeal rather than additional motions. It further provides that Wexler may not file anything else in the case unless he prevails on appeal or the Ninth Circuit directs him to do so. Any filing made without one of those circumstances will be deemed stricken in advance, and the court will take no further action. The case remains closed, and the order disposes of Docket Nos. 68 and 69.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.