Kung v. Chex Systems, Inc.
- Lucy Koh
- 5:20-cv-04885
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Kung v. Chex Systems, Inc.: Judge Demarchi denied Kung’s request to remove her from discovery and settlement matters because no reasonable basis questioned her impartiality.
Kin Wah Kung, Chex Systems, Inc., Citizens Equity First Credit Union, and Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi; the court’s denial leaves Judge Demarchi assigned to the referred discovery and settlement matters.
What happened
In Kung v. Chex Systems, Inc., pro se plaintiff Kin Wah Kung asked the court to remove the magistrate judge handling discovery disputes and settlement conferences. His lawsuit alleges that Chex Systems and Citizens Equity First Credit Union violated federal and California credit-reporting laws.
Kung argued that the judge might know about him or an earlier credit-reporting case because she had been a partner, general counsel, and executive committee member at Fenwick & West, which represented a defendant in that earlier case. He acknowledged that he had no information showing that the judge actually knew about him or his prior cases.
Judge Demarchi denied the request, finding that she had no prior knowledge of Kung or his cases, had no relevant personal bias or information, and had no other reason to appear impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The court also canceled the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Kung v. Chex Systems, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-04885
- Lucy Koh
- Oct. 19, 2020
Background
Kin Wah Kung, representing himself, sued Chex Systems, Inc. and Citizens Equity First Credit Union. The complaint alleges violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and other California-law obligations. The presiding judge referred Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi to handle discovery disputes and settlement conferences.
Kung moved under 28 U.S.C. § 455 for Judge Demarchi’s recusal, meaning her removal from handling the referred matters. He relied on the possibility that, because Judge Demarchi had previously been a partner, general counsel, and executive committee member of Fenwick & West LLP, she might have knowledge about him or a prior Fair Credit Reporting Act case involving him. Fenwick represented Intuit, Inc., a defendant in that earlier case. Kung acknowledged that he had no information indicating that Judge Demarchi knew about him or his prior Fair Credit Reporting Act matters.
Court’s analysis
Section 455 requires a federal judge to step aside when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It also requires recusal when the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, personal knowledge of disputed facts, or certain prior-lawyer or witness connections to the matter.
Judge Demarchi stated that she had no prior knowledge of Kung or his prior Fair Credit Reporting Act actions, had formed no impression of him or the current case, and had no bias or prejudice against him. She also stated that, during her private practice, she did not represent clients in Fair Credit Reporting Act actions and had not been informed of facts concerning Kung or his prior case. The opinion further states that no Fenwick attorneys, including those who represented Intuit, had given her such information.
Disposition
The court denied Kung’s motion to recuse Judge Demarchi under Section 455(a), (b)(1), and/or (b)(2). The court found no basis to question her impartiality and vacated the hearing scheduled for October 27, 2020. This order addressed recusal only; it did not decide the underlying credit-reporting claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.