Buy This Entire Record For
Bruser v. Bank of Hawaii
United States District Court, D. Hawaii
February 16, 2016
MICHAEL DAVID BRUSER and LYNN BRUSER, Trustees under that certain unrecorded Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated July 11, 1988, as amended, doing business as Discovery Bay Center, Plaintiffs,
BANK OF HAWAII, a Hawaii corporation, as Trustee, as successor by merger with Hawaiian Trust Company, Limited, a former Hawaii corporation and as successor Trustee under that certain Trust Agreement dated June 6, 1974, Defendant,
JULIE G. HENDERSON, as Trustee of the Julie G. Henderson Irrevocable Trust, and as Trustee of the Jean K. Gowans Irrevocable Trust, and as Trustee of the Louis L. Gowans, Jr. Irrevocable Trust; RICHARD L. GOWANS, as Trustee of the Richard L. Gowans Irrevocable Trust; KEVIN I. YOKOHAMA; ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF DISCOVERY BAY; SUSAN SHEETZ; and PATRICIA SHEETZ BOW, Intervening Defendants. BANK OF HAWAII, a Hawaii corporation, as Trustee, as successor by merger with Hawaiian Trust Company, Limited, a former Hawaii corporation and as successor Trustee under that certain Trust Agreement dated June 6, 1974. Counterclaim Plaintiff,
MICHAEL DAVID BRUSER and LYNN BRUSER, Trustees under that certain unrecorded Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated July 11, 1988, as amended, doing business as Discovery Bay Center, Counterclaim Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ LOCAL RULE 60.1(C) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JANUARY 19, 2016 MINUTE ORDER DEEMING MOOT AND TERMINATED “PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION (1) FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE JANUARY 8, 2016 ‘COURT ORDER REGARDING REMAINING ISSUES FOR JURY TRIAL, ’ AND (2) FOR A STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE”
Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Michael David Bruser and Lynn Bruser’s (“Plaintiffs” or “the Brusers”) Local Rule 60.1(c) Motion for Reconsideration of January 19, 2016 Minute Order Deeming Moot and Terminated “Plaintiffs’ Motion (1) for Clarification of the January 8, 2016 ‘Court Order Regarding Remaining Issues for Jury Trial, ’ and (2) for a Stay of All Proceedings in This Case” (“Motion for Reconsideration”), filed on February 2, 2016. [Dkt. no. 175.] The Court did not require any memorandum in opposition. [Dkt. no. 178.] The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”). After careful consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration and the relevant legal authority, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
The background of this case is well known to the parties, and the Court repeats only the facts relevant to the instant matter. On January 18, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion (1) for Clarification of the January 8, 2016 “Court Order Regarding Remaining Issues for Jury Trial, ” and (2) for a Stay of All Proceedings in This Case (“1/8/16 Motion”). [Dkt. no. 142.] In an entering order filed the same day, the 1/8/16 Motion was deemed moot and terminated. [Dkt. no. 144.]
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 60.1, which states, in relevant part:
Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders may be brought only upon the following grounds:
(a) Discovery of new material facts not previously available;
(b) Intervening change in law;
(c) Manifest error of law or fact.
Motions asserted under Subsection (c) of this rule must be filed and served not more than fourteen (14) days after the court’s written order is filed. . . .
This Court has stated that,
A motion for reconsideration must (1) “demonstrate reasons why the court should reconsider its prior decision” and (2) “must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Hele Ku KB, LLC v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 873 F.Supp.2d 1268, 1289 (D. Haw. 2012). The Ninth Circuit has held that reconsideration is appropriate if (1) the district court is presented with “newly discovered evidence, ” (2) the district court “committed clear error or the initial decision was ...