Susan Oki Mollway

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.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

procedure

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.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Kathleen McNally, former athletic director at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, who alleged she was not retained in her position in retaliation for complaining about Title IX violations, including unequal pay compared to the male athletic director at another campus and lack of a multiyear contract. She sued the university and several individual administrators under Title IX, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981A, and 1983, Hawaii Revised Statutes § 378-2, and common-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation, seeking punitive damages. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment in full, denied McNally's request for a continuance to conduct further discovery, and struck the declaration of her expert witness. The core reasoning was that McNally failed to produce evidence creating any genuine issue of material fact on her claims, including no showing of a causal link between her complaints and the nonrenewal, no evidence of malice to support defamation, and insufficient diligence or need to justify additional discovery.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

In McCormack v. City and County of Honolulu, plaintiff Michael McCormack alleged that Honolulu police officers used excessive force during a false arrest on a public bus after he was misidentified in connection with a purse-snatching investigation, causing him to suffer an epileptic seizure; he brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights along with related state-law tort claims against the City and the officers. The court partially granted the City's motion to dismiss, dismissing most of the § 1983 claims against the City for failure to plausibly allege municipal liability except for the portion of Count IV asserting deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment, while also dismissing the state-law claims in Counts VI and VII but allowing Counts V, VIII, and IX to proceed. The court reasoned that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support the dismissed claims under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard and that respondeat superior liability could attach to the City for the remaining tort claims arising from the officers' alleged conduct within the scope of employment. McCormack was granted limited leave to amend the complaint.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Carla Rezentes, a female Loss Prevention Agent at Sears, alleged that her termination was due to unlawful sex discrimination by her employer and supervisor, including denial of training, assignments, and promotion opportunities that were given to male colleagues, rather than the employer's stated reason that she had lied about a shoplifting incident. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there were no genuine issues of material fact supporting the claims. The court granted summary judgment to defendant Michael Cox because no viable claims remained against him individually but denied summary judgment to Sears, finding that Rezentes had presented sufficient evidence to create triable issues on her discrimination claims. The decision rested on the summary judgment standard requiring the nonmoving party to show specific facts that a reasonable jury could find in her favor under applicable employment discrimination law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiffs Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii and its founder Michael Mooney, who alleged that their religious use of cannabis was protected from federal drug laws under 21 U.S.C. § 841 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, while also seeking the return of or compensation for approximately one pound of cannabis seized by federal authorities before delivery via FedEx. The court dismissed the preenforcement challenge to the federal drug laws for lack of ripeness, as the amended complaint added insufficient facts to show an imminent threat of prosecution. It also dismissed tort-based claims for the seized cannabis on grounds of sovereign immunity and the Supremacy Clause. The remaining RFRA claim seeking return or compensation for the seized cannabis was allowed to proceed, as the complaint sufficiently alleged a substantial burden on religious exercise.

religious libertycriminal lawfederal power

The case involved a challenge to Hawaii Act 189, a 2009 statute that applied only to long-term commercial and industrial leases held by plaintiff HRPT Properties Trust and required appraisers in rent renegotiations to consider additional factors not specified in the original leases. The court granted HRPT's motion for summary judgment, denied the counter-motions by Governor Linda Lingle and the intervenor lessees, and declared the Act unconstitutional. It held that the statute substantially impaired existing contractual rights in violation of the Contract Clause by changing the agreed-upon rent determination process. The court further concluded that the Act's narrow classification targeting only HRPT's leases lacked a rational basis for its stated goal of stabilizing the economy, thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause.

business & regulatorypropertycivil rights

In Razo v. Thomas, a state prisoner filed a pro se federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Hawaii convictions for drug offenses including attempted promotion of a dangerous drug and related paraphernalia charges, asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise federal constitutional claims and several other issues such as speedy trial violations and evidentiary sufficiency. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the petition with prejudice, finding the claims either procedurally defaulted under state rules for failure to raise them on direct appeal, waived, or without merit because the state courts had already addressed them and any errors in jury instructions were harmless. The district court adopted the recommendation in full, denied the petition, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability on the ground that the petitioner had not made a substantial showing of a constitutional violation.

criminal lawprocedure

In Agustin v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., plaintiffs refinanced their residential loan in 2007 expecting a single loan but received two loans with different terms, including inadequate notices of the right to cancel and inaccurate loan documents. They sought rescission in 2009, but the defendants did not comply, leading to claims under the Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and Hawaii law for rescission, damages, and other relief. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, as well as their request for judicial notice in part, after reviewing the allegations under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard and determining that the claims were sufficiently pled.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case arose from a premature in-bore explosion of an 81mm mortar cartridge during U.S. Army training in Hawaii that killed one soldier and injured others; the plaintiffs sued the manufacturer under negligence and strict liability theories, alleging a manufacturing defect rather than a design flaw. The court denied the defendant's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert testimony, finding the opinions admissible and reliable. It denied summary judgment on the negligence and strict liability claims because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether a manufacturing defect caused the explosion, but granted summary judgment on the separate res ipsa loquitur counts as duplicative of the other claims. The court also rejected the government contractor defense and related doctrines because factual disputes remained over compliance with government specifications.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, Hawaii Motorsports Investment, Inc. (HMC) sued Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. (BV) after BV prepared an allegedly inaccurate Phase I environmental site assessment for property that HMC was selling to Irongate, which led Irongate to renegotiate terms and caused HMC financial harm. HMC asserted claims including professional negligence, breach of contract (as a third-party beneficiary), and negligent misrepresentation. BV moved to dismiss those claims, arguing primarily that it had no duty to HMC because the contract was with Irongate and that any reliance by HMC was unreasonable. The court denied the motion, holding that HMC had sufficiently alleged that BV intended HMC to benefit from and rely on the report, that BV supplied false information due to a lack of reasonable care, and that HMC relied on the report to its detriment.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatoryenvironment

This case concerns a constitutional challenge by HRPT Properties Trust to Hawaii Act 189, a 2009 law that defines the term 'fair and reasonable' rent for certain long-term commercial and industrial leases by requiring appraisers to consider factors such as use, intensity, and property characteristics. HRPT, which owns affected properties subject to leases with rent reset provisions, contends the law violates the U.S. Constitution both facially and as applied, while the Governor and intervenor Citizens for Fair Valuation defend it. The court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment. The core reasoning is that standing is inextricably intertwined with the merits, as any injury from changed contractual expectations cannot be determined without a fuller factual record or trial, rather than on the present motions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involves Prudential Locations LLC suing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain unredacted versions of two documents from HUD's investigations into potential Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act violations; the documents had been redacted to withhold the names, addresses, and identifying details of two complainants. The court denied Prudential's motion for summary judgment and granted HUD's counter-motion, upholding the redactions. The core reasoning was that FOIA's privacy exemption applies because disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, as the individuals had sought anonymity or not authorized release, and HUD's practice of protecting informants prevents retaliation and avoids chilling future reports of violations, with no evidence of agency misconduct or other overriding public interest in the identities.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which Hawaiian Isle Adventures, Inc. (HIA), an outdoor recreation company, sought defense and indemnification from its insurer, North American Capacity (NAC), after being sued in state court for negligence in the 2004 drowning of a customer during a snorkeling tour. NAC moved for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims, arguing that policy exclusions for athletic or sports contests and designated operations relieved it of any duty to defend or indemnify. The court denied the motion, holding that the exclusions were ambiguous because snorkeling does not clearly qualify as a sports contest or exhibition under the policy language and because the final policy did not incorporate a designated operations limitation present in the earlier quotation and binder. The court further noted that the alleged negligence was not necessarily tied to the act of snorkeling itself.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves an appeal under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) concerning whether Hawaii's Department of Education must cover the costs of residential placement for an autistic student at Mana House during the 2006-07 school year. The court reversed the administrative hearing officer's decision that required the DOE to pay for the housing. The core reasoning was that a prior state court ruling by Judge Hifo had already determined the DOE was not financially responsible, and the doctrine of res judicata barred relitigation of the issue.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a labor dispute between employer McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co. and the International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142, over an arbitration award addressing the transfer of two longshoremen, Ruiz and Drago, out of the same work gang due to their history of conflicts under a collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator ruled that McCabe had improperly transferred Ruiz rather than Drago, based on seniority rules, gang practices, and the company's handling of complaints. McCabe moved to vacate the award, arguing it created an impossible situation under the CBA and violated public policy by potentially facilitating violation of a restraining order against Drago. The court granted the Union's motion to confirm the award and denied McCabe's countermotion, finding that McCabe had not shown the award was incompatible with any explicit, well-defined public policy or the terms of the CBA.

labor & employment