Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 86 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 2
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4 MARC J. RANDAZZA, an individual, )
JENNIFER RANDAZZA, an individual, and )
5 NATALIA RANDAZZA, a minor, ) Case No.: 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL
Plaintiff, ) ORDER
7 vs. )
) (ECF Nos. 44 and 81)
8 CRYSTAL COX, an individual, and ELIOT )
BERNSTEIN, an individual, )
10 Defendants. )
12 Pending before the Court is the Motion for Recusal of District Judge Gloria Navarro
13 (ECF No. 44) and the Motion to Disqualify Judge Gloria M. Navarro (ECF No. 81) both filed by
14 Defendant Crystal Cox (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs Marc J. Randazza, Jennifer Randazza, and
15 Natalia Randazza (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Response (ECF No. 49) and Defendant filed
16 a Reply (ECF No. 52).
17 I. DISCUSSION
18 This is not Defendant’s first request for recusal. In fact, Defendant previously filed a
19 motion styled as a Motion Requesting the Recusal, Removal of District Judge. (ECF No. 20.)
20 The Court denied this prior motion at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on January 7, 2013, at
21 which Defendant failed to appear. (See ECF No. 35.) Accordingly, these motions represent the
22 second and third requests for recusal. Defendant filed both of these motions subsequent to the
23 Court’s January 7, 2013, ruling. (See id.) For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motions are
24 both DENIED.
Page 1 of 2
Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 86 Filed 02/21/13 Page 2 of 2
1 A. Defendant’s Motion for Recusal of District Judge Gloria Navarro (ECF No. 44)
2 Rule 7-2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the
3 District of Nevada provides that “[t]he failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in
4 support of the motion shall constitute a consent to the denial of the motion.” LR 7-2(d).
5 Defendant has failed to comply with this rule. Specifically, Defendant’s motion lacks any legal
6 authority to serve as the basis for the requested relief. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion (ECF
7 No. 44) is DENIED.
8 B. Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Gloria M. Navarro (ECF No. 81)
9 Defendant includes slightly more legal support for her subsequently filed Motion to
10 Disqualify. (See Mot. at 3-7, ECF No. 81.) Specifically, Defendant argues that disqualification
11 is required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. (Id.) However, after quoting the statute at length,
12 Defendant fails to provide facts from which “a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts
13 would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Merely entering
14 a ruling in favor of a particular party is insufficient evidence of bias to require recusal by a
15 judge. Therefore, having read and considered the briefing on this motion, the Court DENIES
16 Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Gloria M. Navarro.
17 II. CONCLUSION
18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Recusal of District Judge
19 Gloria Navarro (ECF No. 44) and the Motion to Disqualify Judge Gloria M. Navarro (ECF No.
20 81) are DENIED.
21 DATED this 21st day of February, 2013.
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge
Page 2 of 2