Estavillo v. Cortese
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:23-cv-04032
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Estavillo v. Cortese, Judge Demarchi denied Estavillo’s motion to recuse or disqualify her because his bias allegations were unsupported and conclusory.
Erik Estavillo’s request that Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi recuse or disqualify herself was denied; the order did not resolve his underlying Americans with Disabilities Act claim against Dave Cortese and the other defendants.
What happened
In Estavillo v. Cortese, Erik Estavillo alleged that defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing his request for a third parking permit at his apartment complex. He later told the court that he no longer lived there, leading the court to ask whether his claim had become moot.
Estavillo asked the judge to step aside, claiming the court favored a defendant, was biased against people representing themselves, and had repeatedly ruled for defendants. The court explained that recusal requires facts that would cause a well-informed person to reasonably question the judge’s impartiality, and that a judge’s rulings generally are not enough.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied the motion for recusal or disqualification. She found Estavillo’s allegations conclusory, unsupported by an affidavit, and lacking a plausible outside source of bias; the order did not decide whether his Americans with Disabilities Act claim was moot.
The detailed version
- Estavillo v. Cortese · No. 5:23-cv-04032
- Virginia Demarchi
- Feb. 1, 2024
Background
Erik Estavillo sued Dave Cortese and other defendants under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He alleged that the defendants refused his request for a third parking permit beyond the two permits customarily allowed for residents at County Club Villa Apartments. His complaint sought, among other relief, a declaration that the defendants’ parking policy violated the Act and an injunction preventing enforcement of that policy.
After the parties failed to comply with the court’s scheduling order, the court directed them to submit status reports. Estavillo reported that he no longer lived at the apartments. The court then set a schedule for briefing, including whether that change of residence made his Americans with Disabilities Act claim moot, meaning that there was no longer a live dispute for the court to resolve.
Motion for Recusal or Disqualification
Estavillo filed a motion and additional filings asking the judge to recuse or disqualify herself. His original motion referred to “§ 2200.68,” which the court said appears to refer to a regulation concerning Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission hearings, not recusal in federal court. In a later filing, he invoked 28 U.S.C. § 455.
The court considered the federal recusal statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section 144 concerns a timely and sufficient affidavit alleging personal bias or prejudice. Section 455 requires disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. The court stated that the substantive standard under both provisions is whether a reasonable, well-informed person would question the judge’s impartiality. It also explained that recusal generally requires an outside source of bias, rather than a party’s disagreement with the judge’s rulings or statements during the case.
The Court’s Ruling
The court found that Estavillo’s allegations were conclusory and unsupported by an affidavit. He claimed that the court believed his Americans with Disabilities Act claim was moot, was protecting defendant Dave Cortese, was biased against self-represented litigants, and had shown a repeated pattern of decisions favoring defendants. The court said he did not substantiate the alleged pattern and did not identify a plausible outside source of bias.
The court also stated that the scheduling order that appeared to form the principal basis for Estavillo’s allegations did not decide any of the issues discussed in that order. Instead, it gave the parties an opportunity to brief those issues and present their views.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied Estavillo’s motion for recusal or disqualification. The order addressed the recusal request and did not decide whether the underlying Americans with Disabilities Act claim was moot or otherwise resolve that claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.