Schuman Aviation Company Ltd., doing business as Makani Kai Helicopters, sued the United States over the IRS's assessment of the Air Transportation Excise Tax on its helicopter air tours in Hawaii during four quarters in 2003 and 2004. The company argued that its small-aircraft tours qualified for a statutory exemption because they did not operate on an established line. The court granted summary judgment to the government, holding that the tours were taxable. It reasoned that the flights ran with sufficient regularity and between definite points, were sold at set prices on advertised routes with fixed durations, and were scheduled in advance, meeting the criteria for an established line under the relevant Treasury regulations.
This case involves an insurance coverage dispute in which Lexington Insurance sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Centex Homes under a claims-made liability policy for damage from leaky shower pans at a Hawaii condominium project. Centex moved to dismiss or stay the action and to compel arbitration in Dallas, Texas, pursuant to a policy provision requiring arbitration of disagreements over policy interpretation. The court determined that the Federal Arbitration Act bars a district court from compelling arbitration outside its own judicial district, so it could not properly rule on the motion to compel. To allow full consideration of the arbitration request by a court with authority to grant or deny it, the court transferred venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
This case involved a post-judgment motion by plaintiff Commonwealth REIT (formerly HRPT Properties Trust) seeking attorneys' fees and expenses under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, from intervenor-defendant Citizens for Fair Valuation (CFV) after the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs in a challenge to state legislation affecting lease valuations. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, finding that CFV was an innocent intervenor whose actions were not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, and that the fee request was grossly excessive. The district court adopted the recommendation in full after de novo review of the objections, overruling the plaintiffs' arguments that CFV should be treated as a joint participant liable for fees. The court emphasized equitable considerations and the lack of any finding that CFV's advocacy or intervention constituted unlawful conduct.
This case involves post-trial proceedings in Rodriguez v. General Dynamics Armament & Technical Products, Inc., where the defendant prevailed before a jury and sought to recover costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and local rules. The district court conducted de novo review of objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation on the bill of costs, adopting it in full after addressing issues such as deposition transcripts, daily trial transcripts, witness fees, and copying expenses. The court denied recovery for certain deposition and trial transcripts because the defendant failed to adequately demonstrate necessity or provide timely supporting documentation, and it rejected copying costs due to insufficient detail on the documents and their purpose under Local Rule 54.2(f)(4). It allowed taxation of service costs, some deposition transcripts, and witness fees, resulting in a total award of $26,439.85 to the defendant.
The case concerned whether a U.S. citizen's adoption of her South Korean-born son qualified for immediate relative immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which requires adoption before age 16. The plaintiff obtained a Hawaii court adoption decree effective nunc pro tunc three months before the child's sixteenth birthday, but USCIS and the BIA denied the I-130 petition on the ground that the final decree date fell after the birthday and was invalid for immigration purposes. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding that the BIA's decision was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to account for congressional purposes favoring bona fide family unity and because the record showed no evidence of fraud or a sham adoption.
The case involved former HEMIC employee Anastasia Abbey suing the company and two male supervisors after her termination following an extended medical leave for work-related stress, with Abbey alleging she was forced out due to her sex and for questioning supervisors' decisions and opposing the Brigham Quality Review Project. The court partially granted and partially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims for violation of public policy, insurance bad faith, abuse of process, and retaliation, while allowing Title VII sex discrimination, Hawaii Revised Statutes § 378-2, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims to proceed to trial. On reconsideration, the court found Abbey failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation due to insufficient evidence of causation, such as a lack of close temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse action. The decisions rested on whether genuine issues of material fact existed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, including comparisons to how male employees on leave were treated.
