Roshan v. McCauley
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-05819
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Roshan v. McCauley, Judge Tigar denied Roshan leave to seek reconsideration of the denial of his temporary restraining order.
Peyman Roshan, whose request for permission to seek reconsideration was denied; Douglas R. McCauley was the defendant in the underlying request.
What happened
In Roshan v. McCauley, the court had previously denied Peyman Roshan’s request for a temporary restraining order and an order requiring a response about a preliminary injunction.
Roshan asked for permission to file a reconsideration motion, saying he had notified Douglas R. McCauley about the temporary restraining order. The court said it appeared Roshan had given notice, but denied the request because Roshan still had not addressed the separate reason for the earlier denial: he had not shown that immediate and irreparable harm would occur before McCauley could respond.
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Roshan’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Roshan v. McCauley · No. 4:23-cv-05819
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 20, 2023
Background
On November 17, 2023, the Court denied Peyman Roshan’s motion for a temporary restraining order and an order requiring the defendant to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Roshan then moved for permission to file a motion asking the Court to reconsider that interlocutory order, meaning an order issued before the case was finished.
Applicable standard
Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires a party seeking permission to move for reconsideration to show reasonable diligence and one of three circumstances: a material difference in facts or law that was previously unknown despite diligence; new material facts or a change in the law after the earlier order; or the Court’s failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The Court also noted that reconsideration cannot be used simply to ask the Court to rethink what it already decided.
Court’s reasoning
The Court had partly denied Roshan’s temporary-restraining-order request because he had not provided evidence that he notified McCauley, as required by Civil Local Rule 65-1(b). Roshan asserted in his reconsideration request that notice had been given but that the Court had not been informed. The Court stated that it now appeared Roshan had given notice.
The Court nevertheless denied Roshan’s motion for leave because the request did not address the other reason for denying the temporary restraining order: Roshan had not shown that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage would occur before McCauley could be heard in opposition.
Disposition
The Court denied Roshan’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.