Leslie Emi Kobayashi

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a prisoner’s civil rights lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Public Safety and several correctional officers, alleging an Eighth Amendment violation arising from a claimed premeditated assault at Halawa Correctional Facility in May 2010, along with related state-law tort claims. The plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to correct names, add factual allegations, introduce a new assault incident, assert an ADA claim, and seek broader injunctive relief. The court granted the motion in part, allowing name corrections, additional facts supporting the original individual-capacity claims, and new claims against an additional officer for the later incident; it denied the motion in part, rejecting the ADA claim without prejudice, injunctive relief against the individual defendants without prejudice, and all damages claims against the state entity and injunctive relief against it with prejudice. The core reasoning rested on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barring damages suits against the state and its officials in their official capacities, the futility of certain proposed amendments, and the scope of prior withdrawals of claims against the state defendants.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedurefederal power

In this case, homeowners who refinanced their principal residence with Countrywide Home Loans (later associated with Bank of America) alleged that required Truth in Lending Act disclosures and notices of the right to cancel were not provided, and they sought rescission of the loan along with damages after the property was sold at foreclosure; they also asserted related claims under RESPA and various state-law theories including unfair practices, fraud, and securitization issues. The court granted Bank of America's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the TILA and RESPA claims against it with prejudice and the remaining claims without prejudice. The core reasoning was that foreclosure sale of the property rendered rescission unavailable under TILA, no private right of action exists under RESPA, and the complaint failed to adequately plead facts linking Bank of America to the origination or other conduct as a proper defendant. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend the non-TILA/RESPA claims against the correct entities.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case Mamea v. United States was a Federal Tort Claims Act action alleging medical negligence by physicians at Tripler Army Medical Center in diagnosing and treating plaintiff Siuila Mamea's kidney condition in 1997, which plaintiffs claimed caused her end-stage renal disease and need for dialysis, as well as loss of consortium for her husband. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs on liability. The court determined that the treatment, including a contrast CT scan without adequate hydration, administration of certain medications despite elevated creatinine levels, and failures in follow-up and stone analysis, breached the standard of care and proximately caused the permanent kidney damage.

torts & liability

The case involves a pregnant inmate at OCCC who alleged that prison guards used excessive force by slamming her to the ground, and that medical staff and supervisors failed to provide timely prenatal care after she reported vaginal bleeding, resulting in the stillbirth of her fetus at 32 weeks. Plaintiff brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, along with state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and punitive damages. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues on certain deliberate-indifference claims against the nurses and guards while dismissing others on qualified-immunity or evidentiary grounds. The decision rested on application of the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard, qualified-immunity analysis, and review of the record evidence concerning the timing and adequacy of medical responses.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedurehealthcare

This case involves a motion filed by the plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit stemming from a fatal accident, seeking to exclude expert testimony and evidence regarding the reported presence of THC in decedent Mark Durham's postmortem blood sample. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing the Clinical Laboratories of Hawaii report and Dr. Wong's testimony limited to his role as a percipient witness based on his deposition and the report, while excluding any additional undisclosed expert opinions on THC. The decision turned on whether the evidence was properly disclosed by the expert deadline and concerns over scientific reliability factors like postmortem redistribution and lab record-keeping issues. The court also denied without prejudice challenges to related police report findings and evidence of prior marijuana use, deferring those to the trial judge on grounds of foundation, relevance, and potential prejudice.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Mona Watson Clark's lawsuit against the IRS seeking tax records of an estate and trust under the Freedom of Information Act, along with a claim under 26 U.S.C. § 7431 alleging improper disclosure of confidential tax information. Plaintiff moved to bifurcate the trial to separate the liability and damages phases of the § 7431 claim. The court denied the motion. It reasoned that bifurcation would not promote judicial economy or avoid prejudice to the parties, as it was unclear whether success on the FOIA claims would provide the documents needed to prove damages, and requiring the IRS to prepare for two trials would create more than minor inconvenience.

procedurefederal powertaxes

The case involves a defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuit brought by John Metzler against Elle and Paul Stephens after they expressed dissatisfaction with construction work on their Hawaii residence. Following arbitration that dismissed claims by Metzler's company, Metzler sought to compel production of hundreds of documents from the defendants' privilege log, arguing that disclosures to third parties like architects, contractors, and assistants waived attorney-client privilege. The court denied the motion to compel without prejudice, ruling that the privilege log was inadequate and that many communications involving non-clients were not privileged, while directing the defendants to revise the log and produce responsive non-privileged documents. It also denied the defendants' motion for a protective order as moot.

proceduretorts & liability

The case is an employment discrimination action brought by a U.S. Postal Service employee alleging she was not selected for two postmaster positions due to race, gender, and disability discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and after reviewing evidence of the plaintiff's qualifications, work restrictions from a back injury, interview processes, and selection decisions, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Certain claims were dismissed while others were permitted to proceed based on whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding discriminatory motives and legitimate business reasons.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Williams, co-defendant Naeem Williams sought a court order allowing his defense team to interview Delilah Williams, his co-defendant who had entered a plea agreement, to prepare for the guilt and penalty phases of his capital trial; Delilah Williams moved to enforce her plea agreement and block any deposition. The court denied Naeem's motion to compel an interview or deposition and granted Delilah's motion. The decision rested on the fact that Delilah's plea agreement obligated her only to cooperate with the government, not the defense, and she had declined to speak with Naeem's counsel; her situation was unlike that of a confidential informant because her identity and location were known, Naeem could subpoena her testimony, and no exceptional circumstances justified a Rule 15 deposition.

criminal lawprocedure

This case stems from a 2003 helicopter crash attributed to engine failure, leading to wrongful death claims against manufacturers including Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) for alleged defects in engine components. The opinion resolves RRC's discovery motions regarding two documents inadvertently produced to plaintiffs: GM-RR 7252-7256, a summary of RRC's document retention policy prepared by outside counsel, and GM-RR 8216, a document with handwritten notes by an RRC engineer to assist counsel. The court granted in part RRC's motion to compel return of the documents, finding them protected as attorney work product and attorney-client privileged material, and ordered plaintiffs to return all copies by August 31, 2006. It denied RRC's motion for a protective order, permitting a limited two-hour deposition of the engineer to explore the basis for statements in his summary judgment declaration.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Captain Andy's Sailing, Inc. (CASI), a Hawaii company operating commercial catamarans from state small boat harbors on Kauai, suing state officials from the Department of Land and Natural Resources over fees charged under ocean recreation management area (ORMA) rules. CASI argued the fees constituted an unconstitutional duty of tonnage prohibited by federal law for vessels in coastwise trade. The court concluded that the ORMA fees were an impermissible tax rather than a valid regulatory charge. Its reasoning centered on the lack of a sufficient nexus between the fees collected and any specific benefits or costs of regulating the relevant ocean areas, as opposed to general statewide boating expenses, and noted that the prohibition applies regardless of whether the vessels engage in interstate commerce.

business & regulatorytaxesfederal power