Perez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACIELA PEREZ, Case No. 23-cv-06077-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

v. DISQUALIFICATION AND MOTION

TO REMAND

ESSENTIA INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, 18 Defendants.

The motions to disqualify and the motion to remand are denied. This ruling assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, the applicable legal standard, and the arguments made by the parties. 1. The motions to disqualify are denied as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455. By themselves, adverse judicial rulings or critical remarks typically do not establish bias or prejudice. Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043–44 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56 (1994). And the comments made toward Perez’s attorney in a prior case do not come close to displaying the sort of hostility that would warrant recusal. See United States v. Burt, 765 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th Cir. 1985). Because Perez’s declaration fails to state a valid basis for recusal, it is not legally sufficient. United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738–40 (9th…