This case involved the National Labor Relations Board seeking a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA against HTH Corp., Pacific Beach Corp., and Koa Management, operators of the Pacific Beach Hotel in Waikiki, for alleged unfair labor practices. The Board claimed the hotel had disciplined and terminated employee Rhandy Villanueva to discourage union activity, made unilateral changes to union access policies and employment conditions, and refused to provide requested information to the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. The court granted the petition, ordering interim relief including reinstatement of the employee, good-faith bargaining with the union, and disclosure of information. The decision rested on the administrative law judge's findings of multiple NLRA violations after extensive hearings, application of the traditional equitable factors for preliminary injunctions under the Winter standard, and determination that the Board showed a likelihood of success on the merits along with irreparable harm absent relief.
The case involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee who filed an adversary proceeding against several defendants, including Hector Guerra and Hector & Alicia Investments, LLC, to recover funds allegedly fraudulently transferred from the debtor (a Ponzi scheme operation) to purchase Texas real estate, asserting claims under 11 U.S.C. §§ 548(a) and 544(b) along with Hawaii law. The moving defendants sought to withdraw the reference of the proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court and to transfer venue to Texas, primarily arguing that Stern v. Marshall precluded the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over the fraudulent transfer claims. The district court denied the motion to withdraw the reference, reasoning that the bankruptcy court could adjudicate the core claims, had already handled extensive pretrial matters in the case, and that withdrawal was not required or warranted at this stage, which rendered the venue transfer request moot.
This case involves negligence claims by plaintiffs against Hawaii medical defendants for treatment provided to Jessica Durham after a 2006 car accident on Maui, which contributed to her death in 2008 following further care in Texas. In a related Texas lawsuit, plaintiffs had submitted an expert report by Dr. Ron Blair alleging breaches by Texas providers, and the Hawaii defendants sought to introduce that report here as a statement of a party opponent. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to exclude the Blair Report and denied defendants' motion to admit it. The core reasoning was that defendants did not meet their burden to show the report qualifies as non-hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), since it was neither plaintiffs' own statement nor one they adopted, the expert was not their agent or servant, and authorization was lacking given the Texas procedural context.
In this case, plaintiff David Kersh sued Manulife Financial Corporation and related entities over a 1978 life insurance policy, claiming it was a universal life policy that became fully paid after four premium payments within the first seven years, while defendants maintained it was a whole life policy that lapsed in 1984 due to missed payments. The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that all of plaintiff's state-law claims—including breach of contract, fraud, and unfair trade practices—were time-barred by applicable statutes of limitations. The court reasoned that plaintiff was on notice of the dispute as early as 1997, when defendants repeatedly informed him that the policy had lapsed, and that no tolling doctrines such as fraudulent concealment or anticipatory repudiation applied to extend the filing deadlines decades later.
In Haake v. Safeway, plaintiff Annette Haake sued Safeway and tofu manufacturer Morinaga for negligence, gross negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress after she allegedly became ill from eating Mori-Nu brand tofu purchased at a Safeway store, claiming immediate stomach pain and diarrhea plus later severe injuries including stomach holes and kidney failure possibly caused by maggots. Safeway filed a third-party claim against Morinaga for indemnity and related relief. On Morinaga's motion for summary judgment, joined by Safeway, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims tied to the serious injuries due to a lack of any evidence or expert testimony establishing causation and striking the non-cognizable claims for criminal negligence and unethical behavior, while allowing the claims based on immediate symptoms to proceed because a factual question remained on whether the tofu caused those effects.
This case involves the U.S. government's civil forfeiture action under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act against 133 U.S. Postal Service money orders totaling $127,479.24, which were seized after being purchased in structured amounts below $3,000 to avoid currency transaction reporting requirements. The purchases were made by Richard Smith on behalf of Gail Valentine Jones to shield assets from a large California judgment obtained by claimant Life Enhancement Products, Inc. (LEPI) and its principal. Claimants LEPI, Will Block, and Samuel Kornhauser filed claims to the money orders, but the court granted the government's motion to strike those claims for lack of standing under Supplemental Rule G(8)(c) and entered summary judgment in favor of forfeiture. The core reasoning was that the claimants lacked a sufficient ownership or possessory interest under applicable law—the money orders were traceable to structuring violations, LEPI was merely a judgment creditor without a direct property interest in the seized items, and any victim remedies were available through separate remission processes rather than the forfeiture proceeding itself.
