AND REQUEST FOR RE-SCHEDULING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS AFTER THE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HON. JUDGE DONATO Date of Hearing: April 15, 2015 Time: 9:30 am, Location: Court Room 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE on Defendant TRULIA, INC. I, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, do hereby certify that on March 5, 2015, I served a copy of the foregoing via electronic means via CM/ECF or electronic mail to Defendant Trulia, Inc., to their counsel of record Zac Cox and Clem Roberts at zcox@durietangri.com, and croberts@durietangri.com of the attached “PLAINTIFF DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HONORABLE JUDGE DONATO PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §455 AND 28 U.S.C. §144 AND NOTICE OF MOTION/HEARING AND REQUEST FOR RE- SCHEDULING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS AFTER THE HEARING ON Case3:15-cv-00024-JD Document20 Filed03/05/15 Page8 of 9 Plaintiff Dr. Arunachalam’s Motion to Disqualify Honorable Judge Donato Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a) and 28 U.S.C. §144 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HON. JUDGE DONATO,” “DECLARATION BY DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,” and the proposed ORDER. DATED: March 5, 2015 Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam laks22002@yahoo.com 222 Stanford Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025 650 690 0995 Case3:15-cv-00024-JD Document20 Filed03/05/15 Page9 of 9

# 708 at 138; Doc. # 728) and all prior orders entered in this case on the grounds that the then-presiding judge was disqualified from this action under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4) and 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). DATED: April 25, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL By: /s/ Charles J. Cooper Charles J. Cooper Case3:09-cv-02292-JW Document768 Filed04/25/11 Page26 of 26

Id. Case 1:16-cv-06284-RWS Document 374 Filed 11/29/18 Page 9 of 20 - 5 - matter of law, “recusal were required.” (Id. at pp. 13-14 (emphasis added).) Mr. Harrison’s third opinion goes even further in opining on what “28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (e)” would “not permit” based on his interpretation of certain cases that he cites in support of his legal opinion. (Id. at 14.)

NOVACK AND MACEY LLP 100 North Riverside Plaza Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 419-6900 Doc. #374085v2 Martin Murphy 2811 RFD Long Grove, IL 60047 (312) 933-3200 Case 1:09-cv-02572 Document 228 Filed 07/23/10 Page 13 of 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE P. Andrew Fleming, an attorney, certifies that he caused copies of the foregoing Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs‟ Motion to Disqualify Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455 to be served by electronically filing the document with the Clerk of Court using the ECF system this 23rd day of July, 2010. /s/ P. Andrew Fleming Case 1:09-cv-02572 Document 228 Filed 07/23/10 Page 14 of 14

As Plaintiffs question only appearances and do not allege actual bias, any alleged failure to recuse is harmless error. See In re Allied-Signal Inc., 891 F.2d at 975 (“[W]here no actual bias is at issue, where the question is solely ne of appearances, judicial actions already taken are not necessarily rendered invalid because of a circumstance that violates § 455(a).”). Where, as here, the record contains no evidence of an actual error, there can be no finding of prejudice to any party. See Marcavage v. Bd. of Trs. of Temple Univ. of the Commonwealth Sys. Of Higher Ed., 232 Fed. Appx. 79, 84-85 (3d Cir. 2007) (“no prejudice suffered” where the court’s decisions were correct); Jordan, 49 F.3d at 158 (“Appellant does not contend that [the judge] was actually biased during the trial phase, nor does she allege an xplicit nexus between the alleged errors and the appearance of bias.”).

Any question of a judge's impartiality threatens the purity of the judicial process and its institutions. . . . Because 28 U.S.C. s 455(a) focuses on the appearance of impartiality, as opposed to the existence in fact of any bias or prejudice, a judge faced with a potential ground for disqualification ought to consider how his participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street. Use of the word “might” in the statute was intended to indicate that disqualification should follow if the reasonable man, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality.

Courts across the Federal Judiciary have likewise consistently held that opinions Case 1:16-cv-06284-RWS Document 379 Filed 12/20/18 Page 9 of 15 - 6 - regarding whether recusal is required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) are pure questions of law. See e.g. Melendres, 2015 WL 13173306, at *9 (“The question presented on the recusal motion is whether 28 U.S.C. § 455 requires this Court to disqualify itself. This decision is solely a question of law.”)

There was no suggestion that there was an appearance of predisposition, bias or partiality by Judge Cedarbaum, or that any prior orders were impacted by such an appearance. The Canino Court unilaterally disqualified itself without a 28 U.S.c. § 455(a) motion and honored Holmes' "trembling hope."

Recusal under Section 455(a) is therefore required. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court recuse itself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(2) and cause another judge to be assigned to this case. Case 1:15-cv-01590-APM Document 25 Filed 11/10/15 Page 12 of 14 13 Dated: November 10, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Miguel A. Estrada Miguel A. Estrada (D.C. Bar No. 456289) Amir C. Tayrani (D.C. Bar No. 490994) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 Fax: (202) 530-9016 MEstrada@gibsondunn.com ATayrani@gibsondunn.com Robert N. Weiner (D.C. Bar No. 298133) Anthony J. Franze (D.C. Bar No. 461023) ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1206 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Fax: (202) 942-5999 robert.weiner@aporter.com anthony.franze@aporter.com Counsel for Plaintiffs Philip Morris USA Inc. and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC Noel J. Francisco (D.C. Bar No. 464752) Ryan J. Watson (D.C. Bar No. 986906) JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW Washin

Accordingly, the Court should grant Defendants’ motion for recusal. Case 1:08-cv-10240-LBS -FM Document 228 Filed 04/13/11 Page 21 of 22 -19- CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the Court should grant Defendants’ motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP By: /s/ Douglas H. Flaum Douglas H. Flaum, Esq.