United States District Court, D. Hawaii
CHRISTOPHER ZYDA, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
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
E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.
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). 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
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.
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.
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; 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
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
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 ...