United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DENYING “VERIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO JUDGES FAILIAR TO ADDRESS THE RULE 4 VIOLATIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS COUNTY’S COUNSEL IN THE REMOVAL ON 9/28/2015”
LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On January 29, 2016, this Court issued its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants the County of Hawai`i and the County of Hawai`i Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss; and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Patrick T. Kihara’s Motion to Dismiss (“1/29/16 Order”). [Dkt.no. 32.] On March 4, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Christopher Young (“Plaintiff”) filed a document titled “Verification of Plaintiff’s Objection to Judges Failiar to Address the Rule 4 Violations of the Defendants County’s Counsel in the Removal on 9/28/2015” (“3/4/16 Filing”). [Dkt. no. 34.] On March 8, 2016, this Court issued an entering order construing the 3/4/16 Filing as a Motion for Remand and a motion for reconsideration of the 1/29/16 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”). [Dkt. no. 36.]
On March 23, 2016, Defendants the County of Hawai`i (“the County”), the County of Hawai`i Police Department (“the Police Department”), and Patrick T. Kihara (“Kihara”, all collectively, “the County Defendants”) filed their memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Remand/Motion for Reconsideration. [Dkt. no. 42.] Plaintiff filed his reply on April 11, 2016. [Dkt. no. 43.] The Court has considered the instant motions as non-hearing matters pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) and (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 motions, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand and Motion for Reconsideration are HEREBY DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 21, 2015 in state court. The Police Department removed the case to this district court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction. [Notice of Removal, filed 9/28/15 (dkt. no. 1), at ¶ 4.] The case arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Hilo, Hawai`i on July 25, 2013. Plaintiff and Defendant Michael M. Kraus (“Kraus”) were the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident, and Kihara, an officer with the Police Department, responded to the scene. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Kihara failed to issue a criminal citation to Kraus, and Kihara failed to include information in his report about the injury that Plaintiff suffered during the accident.
The County and the Police Department (collectively “County Entities”) filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint(“County Motion to Dismiss”) on October 7, 2015, and Kihara filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint (“Kihara Motion to Dismiss”) on October 30, 2015. [Dkt. nos. 5, 10.] In the 1/29/16 Order, this Court granted both motions in part and denied them in part.
Specifically, this Court:
-dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Kihara for lack of proper service; [1/29/16 Order at 6-8;]
-rejected the County Entities’ argument that all of Plaintiff’s claims against them fail because Kihara owed no duty to Plaintiff to issue a criminal citation to Kraus; [id. at 11;]
-dismissed Count I - fraudulent misrepresentation - because the claim was not sufficiently pled; [id. at 11-14;]
-dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim in Count II because those claims were not sufficiently pled; [id. at 14-17;]
-dismissed Plaintiff’s interference with chattels claim against the County Entities (“Count IIA”) because, based on the allegations of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s property losses were caused by Kraus during the accident; [id. at 17-18;]
-dismissed Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for civil rights torts in Count III because it was unclear what specific civil right tort Plaintiff was alleging; [id. at 19;]
-dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the County Entities in Counts IV and V because the Complaint did not allege a basis for imposing liability against them for ...