Greenspan v. Qazi

Background

Aaron Jacob Greenspan, who was representing himself, asked the court to recuse itself under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Recusal means that a judge steps aside because circumstances could reasonably raise questions about the judge’s impartiality. Greenspan relied mainly on Judge Donato’s former partnership at Cooley Godward LLP, now known as Cooley LLP, which represented defendants Musk and Tesla in the case. He also cited an unrelated 2007 matter in which Judge Donato was listed as counsel with an attorney from Cooley who was involved in the current case.

Greenspan also objected to the court’s prior order limiting his fourth amended complaint to 50 pages, including exhibits. The court said the limit had been imposed after Greenspan repeatedly filed extremely large complaints, including a first amended complaint that was 1,606 pages with exhibits. The court noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a short and plain statement of a claim.

Recusal ruling

The court denied Greenspan’s recusal request. It applied an objective standard: whether a reasonable person who knew all the facts would reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. Judge Donato explained that he left Cooley Godward in 2009, joined another law firm, and had not worked at Cooley or with the cited attorney since then. The court said a prior employment relationship that ended 12 years earlier would not cause a thoughtful and informed observer to question its impartiality.

The court also rejected Greenspan’s theory that Judge Donato’s past professional engagements with companies that Greenspan believed had business ties to Tesla created a conflict. It characterized that inference as speculative. The court further concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(2) did not apply because that provision concerns a former law firm’s representation of a party in the same or a related matter while the judge was affiliated with the firm, and Greenspan filed this case about 11 years after Judge Donato stopped working at Cooley Godward.

The court added that the recusal request was arguably untimely because the case had been pending since May 2020 and Greenspan filed the request more than a year into the litigation. It also stated that disagreement with judicial rulings is generally not a valid basis for recusal.

Fourth amended complaint

Although the court did not remove the original 50-page limit, it permitted Greenspan to file a fourth amended complaint of up to 75 pages, including exhibits, to accommodate him as a self-represented litigant. The court said Greenspan could, but did not have to, include a chart to organize securities claims. If defendants filed a motion to dismiss the federal securities claims, the court said Greenspan could seek judicial notice of Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other documents that could properly be considered in connection with those allegations.

Disposition

Judge James Donato denied the request for recusal and permitted the fourth amended complaint to be up to 75 pages, including exhibits. The opinion did not decide the merits of Greenspan’s underlying claims.