Oracle U.S., Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc.

Full title: ORACLE USA, INC., a Colorado corporation; ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Nov 28, 2016

Case No. 2:10-cv-0106-LRH-VCF (D. Nev. Nov. 28, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. 2:10-cv-0106-LRH-VCF

11-28-2016

ORACLE USA, INC., a Colorado corporation; ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a California corporation; Plaintiffs, v. RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation; SETH RAVIN, an individual; Defendants.

LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

Before the court is plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle America, Inc., and Oracle International Corporation's (collectively "Oracle") motion for reassignment of action to Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen. ECF No. 1077. Defendants Rimini Street, Inc. ("Rimini Street") and Seth Ravin ("Ravin") filed an opposition to the motion (ECF No. 1093) to which Oracle replied (ECF No. 1095).

I. Facts and Procedural Background

This action was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen. On May 2, 2016, Attorney West Allen, counsel for defendants, was appointed as chairperson of the merit selection panel considering Magistrate Judge Leen's reappointment as a magistrate judge. To avoid any appearance of conflict arising from the Allen appointment, Magistrate Judge Leen recused herself from this action. ECF No. 1036. Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach was then assigned as the magistrate judge for this action. ECF No. 1037. Subsequently, the merit selection panel considering Magistrate Judge Leen's reappointment completed it process and the District Court for the District of Nevada approved Magistrate Judge Leen's appointment as magistrate judge to a new term. Thereafter, Oracle filed the present motion to reassign this matter to Magistrate Judge Leen. ECF No. 1077.

II. Discussion

In its motion for reassignment, Oracle contends that Magistrate Judge Leen's recusal from this action was "temporary" and only for the duration of the reappointment process. See ECF No. 1077. The court disagrees. Magistrate Judge Leen's recusal was "for all further proceedings" in this action. See ECF No. 1036. Further, the court views judicial recusal of any judge as a final act. The court commends all of the extraordinary work that Magistrate Judge Leen has done in this action, but there is no basis to reassign this case back to her. Therefore, the court shall deny Oracle's motion for reassignment.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for reassignment (ECF No. 1077) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 28th day of November, 2016.

/s/_________

LARRY R. HICKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE