1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 RICHARD SEPULVEDA, an No. 2:24-cv-3060 WBS AC individual, 13 Plaintiff, 14 ORDER v. 15 ROSA MADERA LLC, doing business 16 as Rosa Madera Sabores de Mexico; EL PUESTO EG, LLC, doing 17 business as El Puesto Cocina and Lounge; and EUREKA DEVELOPMENT 18 COMPANY LLC; 19 Defendants. 20 21 ----oo0oo---- 22 23 On March 7, 2025, defendant El Puesto EG, LLC 24 (“defendant”), doing business as Rosa Madera Sabores de Mexico, 25 moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that plaintiff 27 Richard Sepulveda (“plaintiff”) lacked an injury-in-fact related 28 to his visit of defendant’s establishment. (See Docket No. 12-1 1 at 7-10.) On May 29, 2025, the court found that plaintiff has 2 standing and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. (See Docket 3 No. 20 at 3-6.) On June 2, 2025, defendant moved for 4 reconsideration of the order denying the motion to dismiss on the 5 ground that the case is moot because of modifications defendant 6 had made to its facilities. (See Docket No. 21 at 1-2.) 7 “The court may grant reconsideration under Federal 8 Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60.” Nguyen v. Stoller, 9 No. 2:23-cv-1157 WBS DMC,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10 30, 2024), appeal dismissed, No. 24-5142 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 11 2024). However, Rule 59(e) only applies to “judgments,” 12 see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (citation modified), and the denial of 13 a motion to dismiss is not a judgment. (See Docket No. 20 at 6.) 14 Accordingly, the court will apply Rule 60. 15 Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration 16 “based on: mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 17 and fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing 18 party.” Nguyen,

, at *1 (citation modified). The 19 court may also grant reconsideration for “any other reason that 20 justifies relief.”

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)).1 21 Having considered defendant’s motion, the court finds 22 that it has not met the standard for reconsideration, and relief 23

24 1 Under Rule 60(a), the court may grant reconsideration “based on clerical mistakes.” Nguyen,

, at *1. 25 The court may also correct “a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other 26 part of the record.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). In addition, 27 Rule 60(b) lists certain other reasons that the court may grant reconsideration which are specific to a judgment. See Fed. R. 28 ee mR IERIE EOI IEE EE

1 is not warranted. See

Plaintiff’s expert declaration 2 indicates that the case still contains a live controversy 3 regarding the accessibility of defendant’s restaurant. 4 (See Decl. of Roberto Cortez Ex. 1 at 13-19 (Docket No. 26).) 5 Defendant’s expert disagrees. (See Decl. of Kelly Bray Exs. A-B 6 at 8-13 (Docket No. 29).) But at this stage, the court is not in 7 a position to resolve genuine disputes of material fact created 8 by the parties’ dueling expert declarations. See Bowen v. 9 | Energerizer Holdings, Inc.,

, 1143-44 & n.8 (9th 10 Cir. 2024) .* 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion for 12 reconsideration (Docket No. 21), be, and the same hereby is, 13 DENIED. 14 | Dated: July 28, 2025 hi tleom th. A. be—~ 15 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 Defendant filed seven evidentiary objections in 29 response to plaintiff’s expert declaration, for lack of 26 relevance, (See Docket No. 28 at 2-3.) The court OVERRRULES defendant’s objections in full. See Sywula v. Teleport Mobility, 27 Inc.,

, 1228-29 (S.D. Cal. 2023) (citing Burch v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,

, 1119-20 28 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (Shubb, J.)).