Estrada v. Real Time Resolutions Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 BYRON ESTRADA, Case No. 25-cv-02782-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S ORDER DENYING 10 REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS INC., et al., TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 29]

12 On May 27, 2025, Plaintiff Byron Estrada (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a Motion 13 for Reconsideration seeking reconsideration of the Court’s Order Denying Temporary Restraining 14 Order at ECF 26. ECF 29. After considering Plaintiff’s paper, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion 15 for Reconsideration. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 On May 9, 2025, Plaintiff field a motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin 18 Defendants from foreclosing Plaintiff’s property at 874 Lakewood Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94089, 19 “[a]ccruing additional interest on the disputed debt,” and “[e]ngaging in further collection 20 activities.” ECF 20. On May 12, 2025, the Court issued an order setting briefing schedule for 21 Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. ECF 22. In that order, the Court set a hearing 22 on Plaintiff’s motion on Monday, May 19, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. See id. The Court ordered Plaintiff to 23 not file a reply brief. See id. On the same day, the Court issued a Clerk’s notice setting motion 24 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and served Plaintiff the Clerk’s notice 25 by first class mail to his address of record. See ECF 23. 26 On May 14, 2025, Defendant Real Time Resolutions Inc. (“Real Time”) filed an opposition. 27 ECF 24. On May 19, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion. ECF 25. Plaintiff failed 1 to appear. Defense Counsel did appear. On May 19, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a 2 temporary restraining order without prejudice to filing a noticed motion for a preliminary injunction. 3 ECF 26. On May 20, 2025, the Court received Plaintiff’s reply in support of his motion for a 4 temporary restraining order. ECF 28. On May 21, 2025, the Court reviewed the reply brief and 5 confirmed that there was no basis to issue a temporary restraining order. ECF 28. 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Trial courts have inherent power to reconsider, set aside, or amend interlocutory orders at 8 any time prior to entry of a final judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The substantive standard governing 9 reconsideration of an interlocutory order is the same as that which governs motions to alter or amend 10 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored 11 and “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is 12 presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 13 change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 (9th Cir. 1999) (per 14 curiam) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Furthermore, “[a] motion for reconsideration ‘may 15 not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably 16 have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & 17 Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 18 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). 19 The Northern District of California also has local rules governing motions for 20 reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration may be made on three grounds: (1) a material 21 difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court, which, in the exercise of 22 reasonable diligence, the moving party did not know at the time of the order for which 23 reconsideration is sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a 24 manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Civ. L.R. 7- 25 9(b). The moving party may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the 26 court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). 27 III. DISCUSSION 1 for a temporary restraining order. Mot. at 4. Plaintiff argues that he is likely to succeed on the merits 2 because Real Time has been sued “several times for lack of ownership.” Mot. at 5. Plaintiff further 3 argues that he “is suffering irreparable harm” due to his “emotional and financial situation” even if 4 foreclosure has not been initiated. Mot. at 6. 5 Having considered Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court DENIES his Motion for 6 Reconsideration. The Court finds that there is no change in law or facts that warrants a grant of 7 temporary restraining order. As the Court previously explained, Plaintiff’s theory that Real Time 8 lacks ownership of his mortgage notes is frequently rejected by other courts in the Northern District. 9 See ECF 26 at 4 (citing Boyd v. GMAC Mortg. LLC, No. C 11-5018 PSG, 2011 WL 6025906, at *4 10 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2011) and Kimball v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, No. 10-CV-05670-LHK, 11 2011 WL 577418, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2011)). Plaintiff also fails to explain why his alleged 12 “emotional and financial” harm is irreparable. 13 Plaintiff also argues that he was not served with Defendants’ opposition or the Clerk’s notice 14 on motion hearing. ECF 29 at 3. But the Clerk’s docket entry shows that the notice of a hearing on 15 Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order was served through first class mail to Plaintiff’s 16 address of record on May 12, 2025. ECF 22. However, no hearing was held when Plaintiff did not 17 appear. As reflected by the minute entry for the hearing, the hearing lasted only 6 minutes and no 18 argument was made by Defendants. See ECF 25. Additionally, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of 19 his motion for a temporary restraining order on May 20, 2025. ECF 27. The Court considered all 20 evidence submitted, including Plaintiff’s exhibits and reply brief, and found Plaintiff’s motion for a 21 temporary restraining order was properly denied. See ECF 26, 28. 22 Plaintiff also states that the Court denied his motion for “preliminary injunction.” See ECF 23 29 at 1, 3. To clarify, Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order. ECF 20 at 2, 19. The Court 24 denied Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order only. ECF 26 at 4. Plaintiff may file a 25 noticed motion for a preliminary injunction. 26 IV. ORDER 27 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Byron Estrada’s Motion 1 Order is DENIED. 2 3 Dated: June 6, 2025

i H ns 2 FREEMAN 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

© 15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28