Kaul v. Intercontinental Exchange
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-06992
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kaul v. Intercontinental Exchange, Judge Oetken denied Kaul and Basch’s motion for judicial disqualification as unsupported, speculative, and meritless.
M.D. Richard Arjun Kaul and David Basch, whose motion for judicial disqualification was denied; the defendants were not granted any new relief by this order.
What happened
In Kaul v. Intercontinental Exchange, M.D. Richard Arjun Kaul and David Basch asked the court to disqualify the judge from the case.
The motion relied on federal laws governing judicial disqualification. The court said the plaintiffs’ arguments were unsupported, improperly speculative, and without merit. The opinion also referred to an earlier order that had described Kaul as a vexatious and harassing litigant and discussed his alleged method of trying to create litigation through accusations of conspiracy.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the motion and directed the Clerk of Court to close it. The order did not change the court’s earlier dismissal of the defendants’ motion to dismiss ruling discussed in the opinion.
The detailed version
- Kaul v. Intercontinental Exchange · No. 1:21-cv-06992
- James Oetken
- Aug. 14, 2023
Background
On September 12, 2022, the court had issued an opinion and order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. That earlier order stated that Kaul had a history of being a vexatious and harassing litigant and said that he harassed officials to manufacture litigation. It also described an apparent tactic of sending someone a letter about an alleged conspiracy, or asking that person to disclaim involvement, and then treating a failure to respond as evidence that the person participated in the conspiracy.
Motion for Judicial Disqualification
Kaul and co-plaintiff David Basch filed a motion asking for judicial disqualification. They invoked 28 U.S.C. § 455 and 28 U.S.C. § 144, which contain standards for disqualifying a federal judge. The court characterized their arguments as unsupported, impermissibly speculative, and without merit.
Ruling
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 171. The opinion does not state that the court reconsidered or changed the earlier order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.