Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-08094
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., Judge Gilliam denied Lenk’s motion to recuse Judge Freeman, finding no adequate basis to question her impartiality.
Kenneth Lawrence Lenk’s request to remove Judge Beth Labson Freeman was denied; the order was entered by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
What happened
In Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., Kenneth Lawrence Lenk asked the court to remove Judge Beth Labson Freeman from the case. He relied mainly on her husband’s prior employment at Jones Day and repeated arguments he had made in earlier related proceedings.
Lenk also cited polls, news articles, and his belief that opposing counsel had coordinated with Judge Freeman. The court said those arguments were based on speculation and other nonfactual matters. It also explained that disagreement with a judge’s rulings is generally a matter for an appeal, not a reason for recusal.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion for recusal. The court concluded that Lenk had presented nothing new that would cause a well-informed observer to question Judge Freeman’s impartiality.
The detailed version
- Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-08094
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 17, 2022
Background
Kenneth Lawrence Lenk moved to recuse, or disqualify, United States District Judge Beth Labson Freeman. The court stated that this was Lenk’s third attempt to recuse Judge Freeman in cases he had filed against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. The opinion states that Lenk had filed four successive lawsuits against the company and that all had been dismissed. The present case had already been dismissed on November 10, 2021, based on collateral estoppel, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and failure to state a claim.
Lenk’s main argument concerned Judge Freeman’s husband’s prior employment at Jones Day. The opinion says that the argument had previously been reviewed and rejected twice, including once by another district judge. Lenk also relied on polls and news articles about public confidence in the Supreme Court and judicial corruption. He theorized that opposing counsel had coordinated with Judge Freeman, based on an email in which counsel expressed confidence that the case would be dismissed. He also pointed to Judge Freeman’s finding that his claims were frivolous.
Legal standard
The court explained that motions to recuse under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 use the same substantive test for personal bias or prejudice. Recusal is appropriate when a reasonable person who knows all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Ruling and reasoning
The court denied Lenk’s motion for recusal. It concluded that Lenk had presented nothing new that would lead a well-informed and thoughtful observer to question Judge Freeman’s impartiality. The court characterized the remaining arguments as rumor, speculation, beliefs, conclusions, innuendo, suspicion, opinion, and similar nonfactual matters, which were insufficient to support recusal. It also stated that judicial rulings may provide grounds for appeal but do not provide a valid basis for recusal. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered the order denying the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.