Sepulveda v. Rosa Madera LLC

Opinion

----oo0oo---- RICHARD SEPULVEDA, an No. 2:24-cv-3060 WBS AC individual, Plaintiff, v. ROSA MADERA LLC, doing business as Rosa Madera Sabores de Mexico; EL PUESTO EG, LLC, doing business as El Puesto Cocina and Lounge; and EUREKA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC; Defendants. ----oo0oo---- On March 7, 2025, defendant El Puesto EG, LLC (“defendant”), doing business as Rosa Madera Sabores de Mexico, moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that plaintiff Richard Sepulveda (“plaintiff”) lacked an injury-in-fact related to his visit of defendant’s establishment. (See Docket No. 12-1 at 7-10.) On May 29, 2025, the court found that plaintiff has standing and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. (See Docket No. 20 at 3-6.) On June 2, 2025, defendant moved for reconsideration of the order denying the motion to dismiss on the ground that the case is moot because of modifications defendant had made to its facilities. (See Docket No. 21 at 1-2.) “The court may grant reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60.” Nguyen v. Stoller, No. 2:23-cv-1157 WBS DMC, 2024 WL 4012849, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2024), appeal dismissed, No. 24-5142 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2024). However, Rule 59(e) only applies to “judgments,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (citation modified), and the denial of a motion to dismiss is not a judgment. (See Docket No. 20 at 6.) Accordingly, the court will apply Rule 60. Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration “based on: mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; and fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party.” Nguyen, 2024 WL 4012849, at *1 (citation modified). The court may also grant reconsideration for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)).1 Having considered defendant’s motion, the court finds that it has not met the standard for reconsideration, and relief

1 Under Rule 60(a), the court may grant reconsideration “based on clerical mistakes.” Nguyen, 2024 WL 4012849, at *1. The court may also correct “a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). In addition, Rule 60(b) lists certain other reasons that the court may grant reconsideration which are specific to a judgment. See Fed. R. ee mR IERIE EOI IEE EE

is not warranted. See id. Plaintiff’s expert declaration indicates that the case still contains a live controversy regarding the accessibility of defendant’s restaurant. (See Decl. of Roberto Cortez Ex. 1 at 13-19 (Docket No. 26).) Defendant’s expert disagrees. (See Decl. of Kelly Bray Exs. A-B at 8-13 (Docket No. 29).) But at this stage, the court is not in a position to resolve genuine disputes of material fact created by the parties’ dueling expert declarations. See Bowen v. Energerizer Holdings, Inc., 118 F.4th 1134, 1143-44 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2024) .* IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 21), be, and the same hereby is, Dated: July 28, 2025 hi tleom th. A. be—~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Defendant filed seven evidentiary objections in response to plaintiff’s expert declaration, for lack of relevance, (See Docket No. 28 at 2-3.) The court OVERRRULES defendant’s objections in full. See Sywula v. Teleport Mobility, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 3d 1195, 1228-29 (S.D. Cal. 2023) (citing Burch v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119-20 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (Shubb, J.)).