Zaykaria v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANKIT DEVARSH ZAYKARIYA; and 	)
SASCHE-TIYE ZAYKARIYA, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-316-D
)
FREEDOM MORTGAGE 	)
CORPORATION, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Notice of Record Clarification, Request for Judicial
Recusal, and Notice of Federal Oversight Reporting” [Doc. No. 36].
The Court first notes that Plaintiffs’ filing fails to comply with the Court’s Local
Rules. Pursuant to LCvR7.1(c), “[e]ach motion filed shall be a separate document, except
where otherwise allowed by law, these rules, or court order.” In the present motion,
Plaintiffs improperly request multiple items of relief, to include: recusal of the undersigned
judge; 	a 	ruling 	on 	Plaintiffs’ 	Motion 	for 	Preliminary 	Injunction 	[Doc. 	No. 	8];
“[c]larification and correction of the record to reflect that Plaintiffs have now actively
pursued only one Rule 56 dispositive motion”; “[r]ecognition that Plaintiffs’ May 13, 2025
filing was not intended as a dispositive motion, and withdrawal of any request for final
judgment contained therein”; and “[j]udicial acknowledgement of Plaintiffs’ notice of
federal oversight reporting.” [Doc. No. 36, at 5]. In the future, Plaintiffs are instructed that
Case 5:25-cv-00316-D Document 43 Filed 05/27/25 Page 1 of 4

2
requests for relief should be filed as separate motions, per LCvR7.1(c), or they will be
stricken.
In their motion, Plaintiffs seek recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. Under Section
455, a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be
reasonably questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). “Section 455 contains an objective standard:
disqualification is appropriate only where the reasonable person, were he to know all the
circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” In re McCarthey, 368
F.3d 1266, 1269 (10th Cir. 2004). “Judges not only have a strong duty to recuse when
appropriate, but also a strong duty to sit, and [Section 455(a)] must not be so broadly
construed that it becomes, in effect, presumptive, so that recusal is mandated upon the
merest unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or prejudice.” United States v. Wells,
873 F.3d 1241, 1251 (10th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted,
emphasis added). Further, Tenth Circuit authority makes clear that dissatisfaction with the
Court’s adverse rulings are almost never a basis for recusal. Id. at 1252 (“[A]dverse rulings
cannot in themselves form the appropriate grounds for disqualification.”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Webb v. Swensen, 663 F. App’x 609, 615
(10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished)1 (“Unfavorable judicial rulings do not in themselves call
into question the impartiality of a judge.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiffs’ motion fails to establish facts warranting recusal. In their motion,
Plaintiffs merely conclude that “judicial neutrality has been compromised” and that “[t]he
1 Unpublished opinions are cited pursuant to FED. R. APP . P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
Case 5:25-cv-00316-D Document 43 Filed 05/27/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Court’s 	pattern 	of 	rulings 	demonstrates 	favoritism 	toward 	the 	Defendants” 	and
“mischaracterizes Plaintiffs’ filings despite clear statutory citations.” [Doc. No. 36, at 4].
Specifically, Plaintiffs take issue with the Court granting an extension of time to a
defendant; and “threatening dismissal.” On the first point, the Court notes that it previously
granted Plaintiffs leave to file a response out of time [Doc. No. 28]. Further, the Court has
not “threaten[ed] dismissal,” but has advised Plaintiffs “that the Court will first decide
Defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss, then set a scheduling conference.” [Doc. No. 30, at 2].
Because Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts justifying recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455,
Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal will be denied.
Although Plaintiffs appear pro se, the Court has previously admonished Plaintiffs
that they must nevertheless comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Court’s Local Rules [Doc. No. 30, at 2]. Accordingly, the Court will continue to strike
Plaintiffs’ filings to the extent they do not comply with these rules.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Notice of Record Clarification,
Request for Judicial Recusal, and Notice of Federal Oversight Reporting” [Doc. No. 36] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ requests regarding their previous
motions [Doc. Nos. 19, 25] are DENIED as MOOT, as both filings have been stricken
from the record [Doc. No. 30]. The Court will enter a scheduling order at a later date, which
will include a deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for summary judgment. IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for a ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Case 5:25-cv-00316-D Document 43 Filed 05/27/25 Page 3 of 4

4
Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 8] is DENIED as MOOT in light of the Court’s separate
ruling [Doc. No. 38].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27 th day of May, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-00316-D Document 43 Filed 05/27/25 Page 4 of 4