United States District Court, D. Hawaii
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
COURT’S MAY 6, 2016 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FILED
ON MARCH 9, 2016, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO CERTIFY ISSUES TO
HAWAII SUPREME COURT
E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge.
6, 2016, this Court issued its Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(“5/6/16 Order”). [Dkt. no. 45. On May 20, 2016,
Plaintiff Vincent DeRosa (“Plaintiff”) filed a
motion for reconsideration of the 5/6/16 Order or, in the
alternative, for certification of issues to the Hawai`i
Supreme Court (“Motion for Reconsideration”).
[Dkt. no. 49.] Defendants the Association of Apartment Owners
of the Golf Villas (“AOAO”) and Certified
Management, Inc., doing business as Certified Hawaii, now
known as Associa Hawaii (“Certified, ”
collectively “Defendants”) filed their memorandum
in opposition on June 6, 2016, and Plaintiff filed his reply
on June 23, 2016. [Dkt. nos. 66, 67.] The Court has
considered the Motion for Reconsideration as a non-hearing
matter 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, supporting and opposing
documents, and the relevant legal authority,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED
for the reasons set forth below.
factual and procedural background of this case is set forth
in the 5/6/16 Order, and this Court will not repeat it here.
In the 5/6/16 Order, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s
bad faith claim, prima facie tort claim, selective
enforcement of governing documents claim, and breach of
fiduciary duty claim with prejudice, and granted summary
judgment in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiff’s
intentional infliction of emotional distress
(“IIED”) claim, negligent infliction of emotional
distress (“NIED”) claim, negligence claim, gross
negligence claim, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 514B-105 claim,
racketeering claim, and Haw. Rev. Stat. § 514B-9 claim.
This Court denied Defendants’ motion as to
Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. 2016 WL 2626846,
Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that the 5/6/16
Order failed to address his claims against Certified. He also
argues that this Court erred in dismissing his bad faith
claim because: 1) there is a special relationship between
Plaintiff and both the AOAO and Certified; and 2) Haw. Rev.
Stat. § 514B-9(e), and Restatement (Third) of Property:
Servitudes §§ 6.13 and 6.14 impose a duty on
Defendants to act in good faith. He also contends that,
because the Hawai`i Supreme Court would adopt §§
6.13 and 6.14, this Court erred in dismissing his selective
enforcement of governing documents claim and breach of
fiduciary duty claim. If this Court is not inclined to
reconsider its rulings on Plaintiff’s claims based on
§ 6.13 and § 6.14, he argues that this Court should
certify a question to the Hawai`i Supreme Court regarding
whether the supreme court would adopt those sections.
also seeks reconsideration of this Court’s ruling that
his IIED claim and his Negligence Claims are time barred
because they accrued on November 30, 2012 - the date that the
AOAO filed the lien on his unit. Finally, Plaintiff argues
that this Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor
of Defendants as to his racketeering claim.
Court has previously stated that a motion for reconsideration
“must accomplish two goals. First, a motion for
reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the court should
reconsider its prior decision. Second, a motion for
reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision.” See Davis v. Abercrombie, Civil No.
11-00144 LEK-BMK, 2014 WL 2468348, at *2 (D. Hawaii June 2,
2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This
district court recognizes three circumstances where it is
proper to grant reconsideration of an order: “(1) when
there has been an intervening change of controlling law; (2)
new evidence has come to light; or (3) when necessary to
correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”
Tierney v. Alo, Civ. No. 12-00059 SOM/KSC, 2013 WL
1858585, at *1 (D. Hawaii May 1, 2013) (citing School
District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th
Cir. 1993)). “Mere disagreement with a previous order
is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.”
Davis, 2014 WL 2468348, at *3 n.4 (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Riley v. Nat’l Ass’n of Marine Surveyors,
Inc., Civil No. 14-00135 LEK-RLP, 2014 WL 4794003, at *1
(D. Hawai`i Sept. 25, 2014). Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration alleges that this Court committed clear error
in the 5/6/16 Order and/or that reconsideration of the order
is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. [Reply at 5.]
Certification of Questions to the Hawai`i Supreme
“This court may certify a question to the Hawai`i
Supreme Court when it concerns ‘law of Hawai`i that is
determinative of the cause and . . . there is no clear
controlling precedent in the Hawai`i judicial decisions . . .
.[’]” Saiki v. LaSalle Bank Nat’l
Ass’n as Tr. for Structured Asset Inv. Loan Trust
Series 2003-BC2, Civil No. 10-00085 JMS/LEK, 2011 WL
601139, at *6 (D. Hawai`i Feb. 10, 2011) (quoting Haw. R.
App. P. 13(a)). The court, however, should not certify
questions when the answer is reasonably clear and the court
can, using its best judgment, predict how the Hawai`i Supreme
Court would decide the issue. See id. (citing
Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530, 537 (9th Cir.
1997); Pai`Ohana v. United States, 875 F.Supp. 680,
700 (D. Haw. 1995)). . . .
Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med.
Ctr., Civil No. 12-00064 LEK-KSC, 2015 WL 419654, at *11
(D. Hawai`i Jan. 30, 2015) (alterations ...