John Michael Seabright

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.

labor & employmentfederal power

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

criminal lawfederal powerproperty

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's decision in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding arising from state court litigation over multiple properties and lenders. The bankruptcy court awarded senior mortgagee Finance Factors interest at a 24% contractual default rate on amounts owed under promissory notes, including in the foreclosure decree, confirmation of sale order, and post-judgment memorandum. Junior lienholder GBBY appealed, arguing that the foreclosure decree was a "money judgment" under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, so that post-judgment interest should accrue only at the lower federal statutory rate rather than the contractual rate. The district court affirmed, reasoning that the decree was not a money judgment triggering the federal rate and that Hawaii law permitted the contractual default interest to continue until sale confirmation or any deficiency judgment.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Marzan v. Bank of America, pro se plaintiffs sued multiple defendants including Bank of America, Countrywide, Old Republic Title & Escrow, and MERS over a March 2006 mortgage loan on their Hawaii property, alleging the loan was predatory, that they were unqualified, that required disclosures under TILA and RESPA were not provided, and that defendants engaged in unfair practices, breach of fiduciary duty, and other state-law violations; they sought damages, rescission, declaratory and injunctive relief. The court granted the motions to dismiss filed by Old Republic and MERS, dismissed all twelve counts in the complaint as to every defendant, and granted leave to amend certain claims. The core reasoning was that the factual allegations, even liberally construed, failed to state plausible claims under the Iqbal/Twombly standard, with specific defects including expired statutes of limitations for TILA claims, lack of private rights of action under parts of RESPA, absence of fiduciary duties owed by the defendants, and insufficient facts supporting the remaining contract, tort, and statutory counts.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon, the plaintiff alleged that Countrywide originated her subprime mortgages on Hawaii property through fraud, including misrepresenting her income and assets, securing a false appraisal, and rushing her through signing, and that BONY later wrongfully initiated nonjudicial foreclosure. After prior dismissals, her second amended complaint asserted claims under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 480 for unfair or deceptive acts, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for false statements, and wrongful foreclosure. The court granted the motion to dismiss in part by rejecting the federal statutory claim for lack of a private right of action and the wrongful foreclosure claim because it was not authorized in prior leave to amend, while denying dismissal of the Chapter 480 claim on the grounds that the statute of limitations was tolled by the discovery rule given the alleged concealment.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns a challenge by Hawaii residents Yamada and Stewart, along with others, to state campaign finance laws after the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought to contribute more than the statutory $1,000 per election limit to AFA-PAC, a noncandidate committee that makes only independent expenditures and does not coordinate with candidates. The court addressed Act 211 § 11-KK, which imposes contribution limits on noncandidate committees. It granted a preliminary injunction as applied to the plaintiffs' proposed donations to AFA-PAC, enjoining enforcement of the limit, but denied a facial challenge to the statute. The reasoning was that the government lacks a valid anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to groups engaged solely in independent expenditures, rendering the restriction unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

electionsfree speech

This case arose from a 2006 car accident in Maui in which Mark Durham allegedly ran a stop sign, resulting in his death and injuries to his daughters; defendants sought to introduce postmortem blood test results showing 2.1 ng/ml of THC to support a contributory negligence defense. Plaintiffs moved to exclude the CLH Report and related expert testimony from Dr. Wong, arguing the testing was scientifically unreliable and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The court affirmed the magistrate judge's June 30, 2010 order allowing Dr. Wong to testify as a percipient witness about the test results and conclusions, and denied the Rule 403 motion. The core reasoning was that the gas chromatography/mass spectrometry method was reliable, the findings were relevant to Durham's actions and potential impairment, and any prejudice did not substantially outweigh the evidence's probative value on negligence issues.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a breach of contract dispute over a $7.2 million loan from Fairway Capital to Seascape Development, secured by a mortgage on real property in Hawaii. Seascape and Banyan Trimont Properties claim that a March 2008 letter agreement settled the debt and requires release of the mortgage, while Fairway argues the agreement was ineffective, that Seascape breached the mortgage by transferring a lot, and that foreclosure is warranted. Plaintiffs sued to enforce the agreement and block foreclosure, leading both sides to file cross-motions for summary judgment based on the loan documents and letter agreement. The court denied both motions, finding that the key agreements contain ambiguities and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the parties' intent and performance, making summary judgment inappropriate.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by the parents of Dennis Wereb after his death from alcoholism complications while detained at the Lahaina Police Station. Plaintiffs alleged that several Maui Police Department employees acted with deliberate indifference to Wereb's medical needs by relying on video monitoring instead of required in-person checks and that Maui County failed to train staff on proper detainee monitoring. The court granted summary judgment in part to some individual defendants but denied it as to Mawae, Burgess, and Gomes, and also denied Maui County's motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed on whether the officers violated Wereb's Fourteenth Amendment rights and whether the county's training deficiencies caused the harm.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involves former hotel security guard and bellman Scott Hughes suing his employer Principle Hotels, the Waikiki Sand Villa Hotel, and co-worker Bobby Mayoral. Hughes alleged Title VII violations for discrimination and sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment, along with related state law claims, based on two incidents in which Mayoral used slurs and engaged in confrontations. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims as barred by Hawaii workers' compensation law while allowing other claims to proceed. It applied the McDonnell Douglas framework to the discrimination and harassment claims, finding genuine issues of material fact on some issues but granting summary judgment where evidence was insufficient or claims were conceded. The court also addressed procedural issues like the single-employer test and local rules compliance but declined to dismiss the Hotel entirely.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case concerns whether Nautilus Insurance Company must indemnify or defend K. Smith Builders and Kyle Smith under a commercial general liability policy for a negligence claim brought by Gabriel Campbell, who was injured falling from a deck at their construction site. Campbell worked as a leased employee of a subcontractor on the project and had already received workers' compensation benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on policy coverage. The court granted Nautilus's motion and denied the defendants', holding that the policy's exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of any insured applied because Campbell was an employee within the meaning of the exclusion, and the separation-of-insureds clause did not create coverage.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a bankruptcy appeal by attorneys Sumida who represented a Chapter 7 debtor and were later sanctioned by the bankruptcy court in adversary proceedings brought by the trustee. The district court granted the trustee's motion to dismiss the appeal. The court reasoned that the notices of appeal were untimely under Bankruptcy Rule 8002 because they were filed more than 30 days after the relevant final orders on sanctions, compensation, and other matters, and the earlier memoranda or oral rulings did not start the appeal clock for the final judgments.

procedure

The case involved allegations by the National Labor Relations Board that HTH Corp., Pacific Beach Corp., and Koa Management, LLC, operating as the Pacific Beach Hotel, committed multiple unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act after a union was certified as the employees' bargaining representative in 2005. These included unfair bargaining, terminating pro-union employees, withdrawing union recognition, and unilaterally changing employment terms. The court denied the respondents' motion to dismiss challenging the Board's authorization of the petition and granted the requested injunction under Section 10(j) of the Act, ordering the companies to recognize and bargain with the union, reinstate employees, and rescind unilateral changes, based on the likelihood that the Board would succeed on the merits of its claims and the need to prevent irreparable harm to the union's bargaining position.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a petition by a National Labor Relations Board regional director seeking temporary injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against hotel operators HTH Corporation, Pacific Beach Corporation, and Koa Management. The court granted the petition and issued orders requiring the respondents to cease withdrawing recognition from the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, refusing to bargain in good faith, discharging employees to discourage union activity, and making unilateral changes to employment terms. Affirmative relief includes resuming contract negotiations from the point they left off in 2007, offering reinstatement to five named employees, rescinding unilateral changes upon union request, and posting notices. These measures apply pending final disposition of related matters before the National Labor Relations Board.

labor & employment

The case involved a former tenured professor at the University of Hawaii who sued the university and its officials after his suspension and termination, alleging various constitutional and statutory violations stemming from complaints about his workplace behavior and the university's disciplinary actions. The plaintiff had previously settled a similar 2007 lawsuit with the university through a Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by the settlement agreement and that no genuine issues of material fact existed. The court granted the motion, holding that the settlement agreement precluded the claims because the university's actions and threats occurred before or were encompassed by the agreement's release of claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case arose from a 2006 side-impact car accident in Maui involving a rented 2004 Ford Focus station wagon without side airbags, which resulted in the deaths of driver Mark Durham and passenger Jessica Durham and injuries to passenger Marisa Durham. The plaintiffs sued Ford Motor Company on product defect claims including negligence, gross negligence, and strict liability, seeking punitive damages on the ground that Ford had known about the risks of side-impact collisions, the benefits of side airbags, and the greater dangers posed by mass-mismatch accidents yet chose to make side airbags optional in U.S. models for marketing reasons while making them standard in European models. Ford moved for partial summary judgment on the punitive damages claim, arguing that compliance with government safety standards and industry practice precluded such damages and that no clear and convincing evidence showed wanton or oppressive conduct. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained because the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could find the requisite culpability for punitive damages.

torts & liabilityprocedure