Sienze v. Moore
- 4:19-cv-04279
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sienze v. Moore, the court denied reconsideration, allowed Victor M. Sienze to proceed without a lawyer, and ordered judgment after granting Moore summary judgment.
Victor M. Sienze, Defendant Moore, Dan Moseley, and the other parties to the case. The order allowed Sienze to proceed without a lawyer, allowed Moseley to withdraw, denied reconsideration, and directed entry of judgment and closure of the case.
What happened
In Sienze v. Moore, the court had previously granted Defendant Moore’s motion for summary judgment. The parties then said the case was effectively over and that judgment should be entered.
Victor M. Sienze disagreed with his former lawyer’s decision not to oppose summary judgment and asked the court to reverse its decision. The court allowed him to proceed without a lawyer and allowed Dan Moseley to withdraw as counsel.
The court treated Sienze’s request as a motion for reconsideration and denied it, finding that the request was procedurally improper and presented no new material facts, change in law, or previously overlooked arguments. The court also ordered separate judgment and case closure. The opinion does not clearly identify the judge by name; the court issued the order.
The detailed version
- Sienze v. Moore · No. 4:19-cv-04279
- Feb. 8, 2024
Background
The court referred to its January 9, 2024 order granting Defendant Moore’s motion for summary judgment. The parties submitted a joint case-management statement saying that the case was effectively over and that judgment should be entered. The court agreed and stated that it would enter judgment separately.
Victor M. Sienze, the first-named plaintiff and the father of the deceased, disagreed with Dan Moseley, his former counsel, and with counsel’s decision to file a statement of non-opposition to the summary-judgment motion. The court reviewed Sienze’s submissions and arguments. It granted Sienze’s request to appear without a lawyer and granted Moseley’s request to withdraw.
Motion for reconsideration
The court interpreted Sienze’s request to reverse the summary-judgment decision as a motion for reconsideration. Under Northern District of California Local Rule 7-9, reconsideration may be sought only under specified circumstances, including a material difference in facts or law, a change in law after the earlier order, or the court’s failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The rule also bars a party from using reconsideration to repeat arguments already made.
The court first found that the motion was procedurally improper because the earlier summary-judgment order had already adjudicated all claims and the rights and liabilities of all parties. The court nevertheless reviewed the substance of Sienze’s motion and submissions. It found that it had considered the facts and dispositive legal arguments presented in the summary-judgment briefing, that Sienze’s arguments had previously been presented and thoroughly considered, and that no new material facts or change in law required reconsideration.
Ruling
The court denied Sienze’s motion for reconsideration and declined to reverse its decision granting summary judgment. It ordered that a separate judgment issue and instructed the Clerk to close the case. The judge’s name is not clearly readable in the provided opinion text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.