This case concerns a Hawaii property subject to a 2007 mortgage loan taken out by the plaintiff's father, who later died; after a non-judicial foreclosure sale in 2010, the plaintiff attempted to rescind the loan under the Truth in Lending Act and sought declaratory relief regarding title. The district court had previously granted in part a motion to dismiss, eliminating the TILA rescission claim with prejudice and dismissing portions of the declaratory judgment claim concerning past wrongs, while allowing the claim regarding present ownership rights to proceed. In the present order, the court denies the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of that dismissal ruling. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to identify new facts, an intervening change in law, or a manifest error in the prior decision, and that certain new arguments regarding the effect of foreclosure on rescission rights could have been raised earlier and were therefore untimely.
This case involves plaintiff Trinidad Enriquez's claims against Countrywide Home Loans, FSB, and others alleging predatory lending practices in connection with her mortgage on a Hawaii property, including failures to provide required disclosures under TILA, HOEPA, RESPA, and other laws, as well as misrepresentations about loan terms, qualification, and securitization. The court ruled on the defendant's motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement by granting it in part and denying it in part. Multiple claims were dismissed with prejudice, including certain FCRA, UDAP, GLBA, CROA, and recoupment claims, while others such as HOEPA, RESPA, fraud, and quiet title were dismissed without prejudice to allow potential amendment. The motion was denied with respect to the TILA rescission claim, which will proceed, and the plaintiff was given a deadline to seek leave to file an amended complaint addressing deficiencies in the remaining claims.
In Caraang v. PNC Mortgage, homeowners sued PNC and related entities over a 2007 refinance loan secured by their Hawaii property, alleging failures to provide required disclosures under federal laws like TILA, RESPA, and HOEPA, improper loan approval practices, lack of good faith in modification attempts, breaks in the chain of title after securitization, and invalid foreclosure proceedings. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing with prejudice claims under HOEPA, RESPA, TILA, unjust enrichment, BOC regulations, certain UDAP allegations, failure to act in good faith, recoupment, NIED, and Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 667, while dismissing without prejudice claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, quiet title, mistake, unconscionability, remaining UDAP counts, IIED, FDCPA, and antitrust violations. The core reasoning was that many counts failed to state viable claims, were time-barred, or lacked sufficient factual allegations, though plaintiffs were granted leave to amend certain counts by July 1, 2011.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
The case involved a fireworks wholesaler, TNT Fireworks, seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of a Honolulu ordinance that banned the possession, sale, and use of consumer fireworks within the city, with limited exceptions for permitted displays and other uses; the plaintiff alleged the ban violated the federal Commerce Clause as well as state due process and local government provisions, exposing it to fines, criminal penalties, and business losses after investing in a compliant warehouse. The U.S. District Court denied the motion. It held that the plaintiff had not met its burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent relief, that the balance of equities favored it, or that an injunction served the public interest, after reviewing the ordinance's public-safety rationale and the plaintiff's operational claims.
business & regulatoryfederal powercriminal lawprocedure
This case involves a disabled minor, Aliah K., diagnosed with autism and receiving special education and mental health services at a private school under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) pursuant to a prior settlement agreement with the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE). Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, alleging that the DOE's failure to pay outstanding amounts constituted a unilateral change to her services, depriving her of a free appropriate public education in violation of the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court denied the motion without prejudice. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs had not shown the threat of irreparable harm to be actual and imminent.
This case involved parents of a nineteen-year-old student with autism and related disabilities who appealed a Hawaii administrative hearing officer's ruling that the state Department of Education had offered their son a free appropriate public education through an Individualized Education Program developed in 2009. The parents had unilaterally placed the student at a private academy and sought to overturn the hearing decision, arguing procedural flaws in the IEP process and deficiencies in the proposed services such as speech therapy and adult support. The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decision after reviewing the record, finding that the IEP team had followed required timelines and procedures, adequately addressed the student's needs with appropriate services and supports, and thereby complied with the IDEA. The court noted that the parents' requested changes were considered in later meetings but did not establish a denial of FAPE.