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.

Brown v. DCK Worldwide LLC

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

March 9, 2017

CLINTON C. ST. CLASSIS BROWN, II, Plaintiff,
v.
DCK WORLDWIDE LLC, ET AL., Defendants.

         ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE “SWORN STATEMENT” OF GREGORY BROWNE FILED WITH PLAINTIFF'S “RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION RE 160 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE 159 ORDER” FILED ON JANUARY 30, 2017 [DOC. 163]; AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RULING 159

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         On January 11, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Clinton C. St. Classis Brown, II (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling 159 (“Motion for Reconsideration”). [Dkt. no. 160.] On January 27, 2017, Defendants dck Worldwide LLC, dck Guam LLC, and DCK Pacific Guam, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) filed a memorandum in opposition, and, on January 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a reply. [Dkt. Nos. 162, 163.] Also before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Strike “Sworn Statement” of Gregory Browne Filed With Plaintiff's “Response to Memorandum in Opposition Re 160 Motion for Reconsideration Re 159 Order” Filed on January 30, 2017 [Doc. 163] (“Motion to Strike”), filed on February 1, 2017. [Dkt. no. 164.] Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition on February 6, 2017, and Defendants filed a reply on February 13, 2017.[1] [Dkt. nos. 166, 169.] The Court finds these matters 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 motions, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, the Motion to Strike is HEREBY GRANTED and the Motion for Reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

         BACKGROUND

         The background of this matter is well known to the parties, and the Court will only discuss the facts relevant to the instant motions. On August 10, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss All of Plaintiff's Claims (“Summary Judgment Motion”). [Dkt. no. 139.] On January 5, 2017, the Court filed its Order granting the Summary Judgment Motion (“1/5/17 Order”). [Dkt. no. 159.[2]

         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. Hawai`i 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).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Motion to Strike

         Along with his reply in support of the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff submitted a letter purportedly written by Gregory Browne (“Browne Letter”). [Reply in Supp. of Motion for Reconsideration at 7.[3] The Motion to Strike argues that the Browne Letter does not conform to the relevant rules. [Motion to Strike at 2.] Specifically, Defendants allege that the Browne Letter violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e), [4] Local Rule 7.6, and 28 U.S.C. § 1746.[5] Moreover, Defendants submit a declaration by Gregory Ian Brown (“Brown”) stating that he did not write the Browne Letter.[6] See Motion to Strike, Decl. of Gregory Ian Brown (“Brown Decl.”) at ¶ 3 (“I did not write the statement, and I did not sign the statement on October 29, 2015.”).[7] In response, Plaintiff asserts that, inter alia: Defendants referenced “Gregory Browne” in previous documents submitted to the Court and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”); Plaintiff's former attorney obtained the Browne Letter; and Defendants have had the Browne Letter since September 2015. [Mem. in Opp. to Motion to Strike at 4-5.]

         Local Rule 7.6 states, in pertinent part, that:

Factual contentions made in support of or in opposition to any motion shall be supported by affidavits or declarations, when appropriate under the applicable rules. Affidavits and declarations shall contain only facts, shall conform to the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) and 28 U.S.C. ยง 1746, and shall avoid conclusions and argument. Any statements made upon information or belief shall specify the basis ...

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.