Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA

Procedural posture

On April 30, 2025, Michael Cordero Romero moved under Local Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the court’s April 25, 2025 order denying his application for a preliminary injunction. Goldman Sachs Bank USA opposed the motion, and Romero filed a reply. The court stated that it had reviewed the submissions and declined to reconsider its earlier order.

Reconsideration standard

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy granted sparingly. A moving party must identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error that must be corrected to prevent serious injustice. Reconsideration is not available merely to relitigate an issue already decided.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that Romero provided no new evidence, change in controlling law, or clear error warranting reconsideration. It rejected his argument that the voluntary-cessation doctrine required a different result. The court explained that this doctrine concerns mootness—whether a court still has authority to hear a dispute—and found that Romero had not provided new facts showing that Goldman’s removal of the account restrictions was likely to be reversed or that he was otherwise likely to suffer irreparable harm.

The court relied on Goldman’s counsel’s representation at the April 25 hearing that Romero’s funds remained available for transfer to his Capital One account, that no further restrictions would apply to that transfer, and that he could close the account and receive a check for the funds. The court also noted that Romero had represented that he could access his funds for personal living expenses. It found that an earlier statement by a Goldman representative advising Romero not to transfer funds to a business account did not support reconsideration because the court had already considered that statement and counsel later made the contrary representation on the record.

The court also rejected Romero’s arguments about alleged coercion, psychological distress, and emotional harm. It found that he supplied no new facts about those harms and that the record showed he could access funds for living expenses and transfer funds to a business account. The court further stated that financial distress and resulting emotional or psychological distress do not establish irreparable harm, and that emotional distress can generally be addressed through monetary damages. The court found Romero’s cited authorities either inapplicable or insufficient, including two references to a purported opinion that the court could not find.

Disposition

The court denied Romero’s motion for reconsideration and declined to reconsider its April 25, 2025 decision denying preliminary injunctive relief. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order or the April 25 order would not be taken in good faith, and it denied Romero fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the reconsideration motion.