Bernstein

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MARY HELEN BERNSTEIN, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00131-JSC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

v. FOR DISQUALIFICATION

EUMI K. LEE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 18 Defendants.

12 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ motion for disqualification. (Dkt. No. 18.1) Plaintiffs contend the Court has a “disdain towards self represented litigants” and had a prior relationship with the law firm at which an individual Plaintiffs plan to add as a defendant worked prior to being appointed to the Alameda County Superior Court bench. (Id. at 5, 8.) Having carefully reviewed the relevant documents, the Court finds this motion suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Motions to disqualify or recuse a judge fall under two statutory provisions: 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Section 455 provides “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the…