NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KABITA CHOUDHURI, No. 17-15192
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-03608-VC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; TREENA
BERLINSKY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince G. Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Kabita Choudhuri appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
motion for a preliminary injunction in her action concerning a mortgage loan. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We review for an abuse of discretion.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir.
2016). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying as moot
Choudhuri’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Choudhuri failed to
establish a likelihood of irreparable harm in light of Wells Fargo’s agreement to
maintain the status quo pending the outcome of this case. See Winter v. Nat. Res.
Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction
must establish . . . that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief . . . .”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Choudhuri’s
motion for reconsideration because Choudhuri failed to demonstrate any basis for
reconsideration. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for
reconsideration).
Contrary to Choudhuri’s contention, the district court was not required to
hold a hearing and allow oral argument prior to ruling on the preliminary
injunction motion. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b) (“In the Judge’s discretion . . . a
motion may be determined without oral argument or by telephone conference
call.”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Choudhuri’s contention that the
2 17-15192
district court failed to provide adequate notice that the preliminary injunction
motion would be considered at the January 17, 2017 case management conference.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-15192