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.

Zyda v. Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts Four Seasons Holdings Inc.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

June 30, 2017

CHRISTOPHER ZYDA, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS FOUR SEASONS HOLDINGS INC.; FOUR SEASONS HUALALAI RESORT; HUALALAI RESIDENTIAL, LLC dba HUALALAI REALTY; HUALALAI INVESTORS, LLC; KAUPULEHU MAKAI VENTURE; HUALALAI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; HUALALAI VILLAS & HOMES; HUALALAI INVESTORS, LLC; HUALALAI RENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REMAND

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.

         On March 28, 2017, this Court issued its Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand (“3/28/17 Order” and “Motion for Remand”). [Dkt. nos. 11 (Motion for Remand), 36 (3/28/17 Order).[1] Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher Zyda's, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (“Zyda” and collectively “Plaintiffs”), motion for reconsideration of the 3/28/17 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”), filed on April 11, 2017. [Dkt. no. 42.] Defendants Four Seasons Hotels Ltd., Four Seasons Holdings, Inc., Hualalai Investors, LLC, Hualalai Residential, LLC, and Hualalai Rental Management, LLC (collectively “Four Seasons” or “Defendants”) filed their memorandum in opposition on April 25, 2017, and Plaintiffs filed their reply on May 9, 2017. [Dkt. nos. 45, 51.] The Court finds this matter 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”). Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied for the reasons set forth below.

         BACKGROUND

         The relevant background is set forth in the 3/28/17 Order, and this Court will only repeat the background that is relevant to the instant motion.

         On November 1, 2016, Defendants filed their Notice of Removal of Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b) (“Notice of Removal”), removing the instant case from the State of Hawai`i Circuit Court of the Third Circuit to this district court. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Remand on November 14, 2016, arguing that Defendants did not timely file the Notice of Removal. In the 3/28/17 Order, this Court concluded that the Notice of Removal was timely because it was filed within thirty days of Four Seasons' ability to ascertain that the amount in controversy exceeded the Class Action Fairness Act's (“CAFA”) five-million-dollar requirement. 2017 WL 1157844, at *8.

         In the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs argue that this Court erred in denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand because Defendants were aware that the amount in controversy was over five million dollars in light of Plaintiffs' demand for rescission in their October 14, 2015 amended complaint;[2] and Defendants knew the value of the properties that would be subject to rescission exceeded five million dollars. Plaintiffs argue that, because Defendants were aware of the demand for rescission on October 14, 2015, the thirty-day removal period lapsed under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) before Defendants filed their Notice of Removal on November 1, 2016. Plaintiffs therefore contend that removal was improper.

         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). . . . “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 following grounds:
(a) Discovery of new material facts not previously available;
(b) Intervening change in law;
(c) Manifest error of law or ...

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.