Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harold Kon; Francine D. Peters; Frank L. Thornton; For Themselves and As Representatives of the Class of Similarly Situated Participants of the v. Tetsuya Goto

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII


August 21, 2012

HAROLD KON; FRANCINE D. PETERS; FRANK L. THORNTON; FOR THEMSELVES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PARTICIPANTS OF THE
RETIREMENT PLAN OF U-ME ENTERPRISES, INC.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
TETSUYA GOTO, AKA ALAN T. GOTO;
KATSUJI UCHIIKE; RANDELL T. YAMANE; ISAAC KUWAMURA; INDIVIDUALLY AND A FIDUCIARIES OF THE RETIREMENT PLAN OF U-ME ENTERPRISES, INC.;
U-ME ENTERPRISES, INC., DBA "U-ME TOURS"; MASUMI GOTO,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Helen Gillmor United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TETSUYA GOTO'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 308)

On August 3, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Amended Final Judgment. (Doc. 307). On August 13, 2012, Defendant TetSuya Goto filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 308).

The Motion is DENIED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 9, 1996, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint. (Doc. 1).

On December 30, 1997, the Court issued an Order approving a settlement between the Plaintiffs and all Defendants. (Doc. 108).

On February 9, 1998, the Court entered a Judgment pursuant to the Order approving the settlement. (Doc. 110).

On May 17, 2002, the Court entered an Amended Judgment that ordered and adjudged that Defendant Tetsuya Goto owed $526,228.02, with accrued interest. (Doc. 214).

On August 3, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting the

Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Amended Final Judgment. (Doc. 307).

On August 13, 2012, Defendant TetSuya Goto filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the granting of the extension of the Amended Final Judgment. (Doc. 308).

STANDARD

It is well settled in the Ninth Circuit that a successful motion for reconsideration must accomplish two goals. First, the motion must demonstrate some reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision. Second, the motion must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Na Mamo O 'Aha'ino v. Galiher, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1059 (D. Hawaii 1999)(citations omitted).

Courts have established only three grounds for justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct clear or manifest error in law or fact in order to prevent manifest injustice. See Mustafa v. Clark County School District, 157 F.3d 1169, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1998); Great Hawaiian Financial Corp. v. Aiu, 116 F.R.D. 612, 616 (D. Hawaii 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 863 F.2d 617 (9th Cir. 1988). The District of Hawaii has implemented the three grounds as a basis for reconsideration in Local Rule of Civil Procedure 60.1.

A motion for reconsideration "must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F.Supp. 429, 430 (D. Haw. 1996). The district court has sound discretion to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

ANALYSIS

Defendant Tetsuya Goto ("Defendant") Moves for Reconsideration of the Court's Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Amended Final Judgment for ten years. Although the Defendant's argument is difficult to comprehend, he appears to be arguing that the Court's ruling conflicts with federal law. He does not identify a particular federal law that the Court's ruling conflicts with, however, or explain the nature of the purported conflict.

A motion for reconsideration will not be granted unless the movant establishes: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct clear or manifest error in law or fact in order to prevent manifest injustice. See Mustafa v. Clark County School District, 157 F.3d 1169, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1998). The Defendant has not pointed to a change in the law, new evidence, or the need to correct a manifest error. To obtain reconsideration, a movant "must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F.Supp. 429, 430 (D. Haw. 1996). The Defendant has pointed to no facts or law that merit reconsideration of the Court's ruling.

Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Tetsuya Goto's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 308) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Helen Gillmor

Harold Kon; Francine D. Peters; Frank L. Thornton; for themselves and as representatives of the class of similarly situated participants of the Retirement Plan of U-ME Enterprises, Inc. v. Tetsuya Goto, aka Alan T. Goto; Katsuji Uchiike; Randell T. Yamane; Isaac Kuwamura; individually and as fiduciaries of the Retirement Plan of U-ME Enterprises, Inc., U-ME Enterprises, Inc., dba "U-ME TOURS"; Masumi Goto; Civil No. 96-00340 HG-BMK; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TETSUYA GOTO'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 308).

20120821

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.