Rothschild v. The Pacific Companies

Background

Mayer Amschel Rothschild brought this action against The Pacific Companies while representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees. After screening earlier complaints, the court found deficiencies involving subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, but it later found that Rothschild’s Third Amended Complaint stated legally recognized claims against The Pacific Companies.

The operative complaint alleges claims for fraud, civil conspiracy, interference with an expected business opportunity, breach of contract, nuisance, and personal injury. Rothschild alleges that a terms sheet was signed for development of a five-story condominium project on property in Burlingame, California, next to a parking garage being developed by The Pacific Companies. He alleges that the development did not proceed, the property was sold without his involvement, and construction-related noise, odors, vibrations, pollution, or other conditions caused financial, emotional, and physical harm.

Motion to Relate and Consolidate

The Pacific Companies asked the court to treat this case as related to an earlier related case and to consolidate the two cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The court found that the cases involved the same Burlingame property and the same alleged contract among Rothschild, Stephanie Ann Gildred, and The Pacific Companies. It also found that treating the cases as related would avoid duplicative work or conflicting results. The court therefore granted the request to relate the cases and directed that the related case be reassigned to Judge Cisneros.

The court denied the request to consolidate without prejudice to The Pacific Companies’ ability to file a future consolidation motion. It explained that The Pacific Companies had not provided arguments specific to consolidation or addressed whether the cases involved a common question of law or fact. The court stated that it would discuss possible consolidation with the parties at the next case-management conference and could require a more specific proposal.

Other Requests

Rothschild asked the court to oversee communications between the parties. The court denied that request, explaining that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules govern the parties’ conduct and are sufficient to support fair and efficient proceedings.

Rothschild also asked to transfer the case to a United States district court in Tampa. The court denied that request without prejudice because he did not provide an argument or legal authority supporting a venue change under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court noted that Rothschild had also stated that the Northern District of California was the appropriate venue based on diversity considerations.

Motion for Recusal

Rothschild asked Judge Cisneros to remove herself because he believed her prior orders and recommendations contained negative or disparaging comments and showed that she did not like him. The court evaluated the request under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. It held that Rothschild had not submitted the affidavit required under Section 144 and that his reliance on prior judicial orders and recommendations did not show bias from an outside source. The court further held that disagreement with judicial rulings does not establish grounds for disqualification.

The court denied the Motion for Recusal. In its conclusion, the court held that The Pacific Companies’ Motion to Relate and for Consolidation was granted in part and denied in part, and that Rothschild’s Motion for Recusal was denied. The court also directed the Clerk to schedule a case-management conference for July 25, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. by videoconference.