1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 NAVJEET SINGH BANGA, 10 Case No. 16-cv-04270-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. AMENDED ORDER DENYING 12 MOTION FOR CHRIS GUS KANIOS, et al., RECONSIDERATION 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Navjeet Singh Banga has filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying 16 his motion to set aside the judgment. Dkt. 618. The motion is procedurally improper because 17 Banga did not first seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration, as is required under Local Civil 18 Rule 7-9(b). In any event, the motion raises no substantial argument in favor of reconsideration. It 19 also misstates the law. For example, the motion quotes Granite State Ins. Co. v. Smart Modular 20 Techs, Inc.,

, 1030–31 (9th Cir. 1996) for the proposition that “Rule 52(c) applies 21 only during trial,” and that once trial is complete, “the court must make findings under Rule 52(a) 22 based on the entire record.” See Mot, at 2. That quote appears nowhere in Granite State, and that 23 case never discusses the propriety of ruling on a deferred Rule 52(c) motion after the close of 24 evidence. Banga’s motion is denied. 25 26 27 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 Dated: November 20, 2025 4 RICHARD SEEBORG 5 Chief United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 ll ae 12

13 14

15 16

= 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 98 << SHORT ORDER TITLE >> CASE 16-cv-04270-RS