Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Rohr v. Crime Victims Compensation Commission

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

February 28, 2017

CLAUDIA ROHR, Plaintiff,
v.
CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION COMMISSION of the State of Hawai'i, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED JULY 6, 2016

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         On November 23, 2016, this Court issued its Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Filed on June 6, 2016 (“11/23/16 Order” and “Motion to Dismiss”). [Dkt. nos. 17 (Motion to Dismiss), 34 (11/23/16 Order).] On December 8, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Claudia Rohr (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion seeking reconsideration of part of the 11/23/16 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”). [Dkt. no. 37.] On December 27, 2016, Defendant Crime Victims Compensation Commission (“Defendant”) filed its memorandum in opposition, and Plaintiff filed her reply on January 13, 2017. [Dkt. nos. 42, 49.] 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 memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth below. Specifically, this Court GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration insofar as this Court HEREBY WITHDRAWS the portion of the 11/23/16 Order concluding that a two-year statute of limitations period applies to Plaintiff's claim. The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED in all other respects.

         BACKGROUND

         The relevant background is set forth in the 11/23/16 Order, and this Court only repeats the events that are relevant to the Motion for Reconsideration.

         On June 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint, and she filed an errata to the Amended Complaint on August 10, 2016. [Dkt. nos. 14, 21.] Plaintiff filed another errata to the Amended Complaint on December 8, 2016. [Dkt. no. 36.]

         The Amended Complaint alleges a single claim - violation of Title II, Part A of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), as amended by the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-34; and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35. [Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 61-65.]

         In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant sought dismissal of the Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the ground that Plaintiff's claim was time-barred. In the 11/23/16 Order, this Court concluded that the two-year statute of limitations period in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7 applied to Plaintiff's claim. [11/23/16 Order at 12-13.] Although this Court agreed with Defendant that a possible statute-of-limitations defense was apparent on the face of the Amended Complaint, this Court found that there were issues of fact regarding Plaintiff's and Scott Andrews's diligence and the timing of their discovery of the cause of action. This Court therefore denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. [Id. at 14-15.]

         In the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that this Court erred in concluding that the two-year statute of limitations applies. Plaintiff argues that the four-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 1658 applies because her claim would not have been possible under the ADA, prior to the ADAAA.

         STANDARD

         This 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). . . . “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). Local Rule 60.1 states, in relevant part:

Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders may be brought only upon the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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