Moshogiannis v. Almaden Family Housing
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-07362
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Moshogiannis v. Almaden Family Housing, Judge Freeman denied reconsideration of the earlier denial of a temporary restraining order.
Kiriaki Moshogiannis was affected because the court denied her motion for reconsideration, leaving in place the earlier denial of her request for a temporary restraining order. Almaden Family Housing was the defendant.
What happened
In Kiriaki Moshogiannis v. Almaden Family Housing, Moshogiannis brought an Americans with Disabilities Act case related to her eviction and asked for a temporary restraining order. She represented herself.
Moshogiannis asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of that request. She argued that the court had not properly considered documented facts showing federal jurisdiction and irreparable harm, and had not applied the correct legal standard.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion for reconsideration. The court found no change in the facts or law supporting relief and said the complaint did not explain the required elements of an Americans with Disabilities Act claim or show a likelihood of success.
The detailed version
- Moshogiannis v. Almaden Family Housing · No. 5:25-cv-07362
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 4, 2025
Background
Moshogiannis filed this action without a lawyer on September 2, 2025. The complaint alleged a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act related to her eviction from her residence. The court stated that the handwritten complaint did not set out the elements of an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Moshogiannis also applied to proceed without paying filing fees and sought a temporary restraining order.
On September 3, 2025, the court granted her application to proceed without paying filing fees and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the complaint failed to set out the elements of a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Motion for Reconsideration
Moshogiannis moved for reconsideration of the order denying the temporary restraining order. She argued that the court had failed to properly weigh documented facts that established federal jurisdiction and irreparable harm. She also argued that the court had not applied the correct standard from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
The court explained that reconsideration of an interlocutory order is generally disfavored and may be granted when there is newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court also noted that the district's local rules allow reconsideration based on a previously unknown material difference in fact or law, new material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Previously raised arguments may not simply be reargued.
Ruling
The court found no change in law or facts warranting a temporary restraining order. It reiterated that the complaint failed to provide a basis for relief as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that Moshogiannis had not explained how she demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. The court therefore denied Moshogiannis's motion for reconsideration of the order denying her motion for a temporary restraining order. The opinion did not state that the case itself was dismissed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.