Anna Vertkin, M.d. v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANNA VERTKIN, M.D.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15211
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00775-RS
MEMORANDUM*
ANNA VERTKIN, M.D.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
MARIA SOCORRO RUIZ GUEVARA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15215
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-03527-RS
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
11-15211 2
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Anna Vertkin, M.D., appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgments dismissing her related actions arising from foreclosure
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion the denial of a recusal motion. Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d
1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vertkin’s motions
to disqualify the district court judge because Vertkin failed to demonstrate that the
judge’s impartiality might be reasonably questioned, that the judge had a personal
bias or prejudice, or that either the judge or his former law firm represented a
defendant in the instant matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)-(b)(2) (setting forth
grounds for recusal, including if the judge “served as lawyer in the matter in
controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during
such association as a lawyer concerning the matter”); Liteky v. United States, 510

-- 2 of 3 --

11-15211 3
U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis
for a bias or partiality motion.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --