United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MAUI LOA, individually and in his capacity as Chief of the Hou 1778 Hawaiians, a native Hawaiian tribal Indian band, Plaintiff,
LORETTA LYNCH, in her official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States of America; SALLY JEWELL, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION, ECF NO. 28
MICHAEL SEABRIGHT CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Loretta Lynch and Sally Jewell in their official capacities
as Attorney General of the United States and Secretary of the
Department of the Interior of the United States,
respectively, move for reconsideration in part of this
court's December 7, 2016 Order which granted
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 28. In granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the December 7 Order
discussed certain aspects of the Hawaiian Homes Commission
Act (“HHCA”), 42 Stat. 108 (1921). Loa v.
Lynch, 2016 WL 7155733, at *4 (D. Haw. Dec. 7, 2016).
Defendants do not seek to alter the ultimate holding of the
December 7 Order but do request that the court change some of
the language in the discussion of the HHCA. Based on the
following, the court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with
newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the
initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an
intervening change in controlling law. There may also be
other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting
reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
1993) (citation omitted); see also Local Rule 60.1.
“Clear error exists when . . . [a] court is left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” In re Adamson Apparel, Inc., 785 F.3d
1285, 1291 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). Reconsideration is “an
extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests
of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”
Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation
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.” Donaldson v. Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F.Supp. 429, 430 (D. Haw. 1996). Mere
disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis
for reconsideration, and reconsideration may not be based on
evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented
at the time of the challenged decision. See Haw.
Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F.Supp.2d 1253,
1269 (D. Haw. 2005). “Whether or not to grant
reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the
court.” White v. Sabatino, 424 F.Supp.2d 1271,
1274 (D. Haw. 2006) (quoting Navajo Nation v.
Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian
Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Defendants' Proposed Changes
court's December 7 Order dismissed Plaintiff's claims
against Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendants request the court to reconsider two parts of the
December 7 Order.
begin, Defendants request the court to delete the following
paragraph in the December 7 Order:
Second, the court does not have federal subject matter
jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
(“HHCA”), 42 Stat. 108 (1921), claim because it
does not “arise under” the laws of the United
States. Keaukaha- Panaewa Cmty. Ass'n v.
Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 588 F.2d 1216, 1227 (9th Cir.
1978) (“We therefore conclude that the Commission Act
claims do not arise under federal law.”). Although the
HHCA began as federal law, it became state law when the
Hawaii Admission Act (“Admission Act”), Pub. L.
No. 86-3, 73 Stat. 5 (1959), adopted it into the Hawaii state
constitution and Congress subsequently deleted it from the
United States Code. Id. § 4; see also Han
v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 45 F.3d 333, 339 (9th Cir.
1995); Keaukaha-Panaewa Cmty. Ass'n, 588 F.2d at
1219, 1226-27. Because claims under the HHCA arise solely
under state law, this claim doesn't “arise
under” federal law.
Loa, 2016 WL 7155733, at *4; Defs.' Mot at 3. In
its place, Defendants seek the following language:
Second, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act
(“HHCA”), 42 Stat. 108 (1921), provides no waiver
of the United States' sovereign immunity. See Moke v.
United States, Civ. No. 04-00680 ACK-LEK, 2006 ...