Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 20, 2025

Banga v. Chris Gus Kanios

Judge
Richard Seeborg
Docket
3:16-cv-04270
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Banga v. Kanios, Judge Seeborg denied Banga’s motion to reconsider because it was procedurally improper and unsupported by a substantial argument.

Who this affects

Navjeet Singh Banga was directly affected because the court denied his motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not describe any further effect on the defendants.

What happened

In Navjeet Singh Banga v. Chris Gus Kanios, et al., Navjeet Singh Banga asked the court to reconsider an order denying his request to set aside the judgment.

The court said the request was procedurally improper because Banga did not first obtain permission to file a reconsideration motion, as required by a local court rule. The court also found that the motion offered no substantial reason for reconsideration and misstated a prior case’s discussion of Rule 52.

Chief Judge Richard Seeborg denied Banga’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not describe any change to the underlying judgment.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Banga v. Chris Gus Kanios · No. 3:16-cv-04270
Judge
Richard Seeborg
Date
Nov. 20, 2025

Background

Navjeet Singh Banga filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its order denying his motion to set aside the judgment. The order is an amended order denying reconsideration.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that Banga’s motion was procedurally improper because he did not first seek leave, or permission, to file a motion for reconsideration as required by Local Civil Rule 7-9(b).

The court also concluded that the motion did not present a substantial argument supporting reconsideration and misstated the law. In particular, Banga quoted Granite State Ins. Co. v. Smart Modular Techs., Inc. as stating that Rule 52(c) applies only during trial and that, after trial, the court must make findings under Rule 52(a) based on the entire record. The court said that quotation does not appear in Granite State and that the case does not discuss whether a deferred Rule 52(c) motion may properly be decided after the close of evidence.

Disposition

Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg denied Banga’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not state that the underlying judgment was set aside or otherwise changed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.