Moshogiannis v. Almaden Family Housing

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 KIRIAKI MOSHOGIANNIS, Case No. 5:25-cv-07362-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 v. OF THE COURT’S ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 10 ALMADEN FAMILY HOUSING, [Re: ECF 11] 11 Defendant.

12 On September 4, 2025, Plaintiff Kiriaki Moshogiannis, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion 13 for Reconsideration seeking reconsideration of the Court’s Order Denying Temporary Restraining 14 Order at ECF 8. ECF 11. After considering Plaintiff’s paper, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 15 Motion for Reconsideration. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff filed this pro se action on September 2, 2025, alleging a cause of action under the 18 Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in connection with her eviction from her residence. 19 See Compl., ECF 1. In her handwritten complaint, Plaintiff did not set forth any elements of a 20 cause of action under the ADA. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on 21 September 2, 2025. See Pl.’s Applic., ECF 2. Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a 22 temporary restraining order (“TRO”) concurrently with her complaint. See Pl.’s Applic., ECF 3. 23 The case was reassigned to the undersigned judge on September 2, 2025. See Order Reassigning 24 Case, ECF 6. 25 On September 3, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 26 pauperis, and in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) screened the complaint. See Order, ECF 8. 27 Because Plaintiff’s complaint failed to set forth the elements for a cause of action under the ADA, 1 Plaintiff’s motion for TRO. See id. 2 II. LEGAL STANDARD 3 Trial courts have inherent power to reconsider, set aside, or amend interlocutory orders at 4 any time prior to entry of a final judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The substantive standard 5 governing reconsideration of an interlocutory order is the same as that which governs motions to 6 alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Motions for 7 reconsideration are disfavored and “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 8 unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 9 there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 10 1254 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Furthermore, “[a] 11 motion for reconsideration ‘may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first 12 time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” Marlyn 13 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 14 Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). 15 The Northern District of California also has local rules governing motions for 16 reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration may be made on three grounds: (1) a material 17 difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court, which, in the exercise 18 of reasonable diligence, the moving party did not know at the time of the order for which 19 reconsideration is sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a 20 manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Civ. L.R. 7- 21 9(b). The moving party may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the 22 court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiff argues that the Court “failed to properly weigh existing, documented facts that 25 establish federal jurisdiction and irreparable harm.” Pl.’s Mot. at 2. Plaintiff further argues that 26 “[t]he court’s denial of the TRO failed to apply the correct standard under Winter v. Natural 27 Resources [D]efense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008).” Id. at 3. 1 Reconsideration. The Court finds that there is no change in law or facts that warrants a grant of 2 || temporary restraining order. As the Court previously explained, Plaintiff's complaint failed to set 3 forth a basis for relief as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has 4 || failed to explain how she has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 5 IV. ORDER 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 7 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. 8 9 Dated: September 4, 2025

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 11 United States District Judge a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28