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.

Bandalan v. CIT Bank N.A.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

July 18, 2017

Bandalan
v.
CIT Bank N.A. et al

         INCLINATIONS

         It is Judge Mollway's practice, whenever possible, to notify attorneys and pro se parties scheduled to argue motions before her of her inclinations on the motions and the reasons for the inclinations. This is part of Judge Mollway's normal practice, rather than a procedure unique to a particular case, and is designed to help the advocates prepare for oral argument. It is the judge's hope that the advance notice of her inclination and the accompanying reasons will focus the oral argument and permit the advocates to use the hearing to show the judge why she is mistaken or why she is correct. The judge is not bound by the inclination and sometimes departs from the inclination in light of oral argument.

         Judge Mollway attempts to communicate her inclinations no later than one working day before a hearing. The court's preference is to distribute the inclinations to the parties via the court's electronic filing system (“CM/ECF”). Accordingly, parties are encouraged to participate in the court's CM/ECF system.

         The inclination is intended to be only a summary of the court's thinking before the hearing and not a complete legal discussion. The court will issue a written order with a detailed analysis after the hearing.

         The parties are reminded that, under Local Rule 7.4, they may not submit supplemental briefs (such as briefs addressing the inclination) unless authorized by the court. Supplemental declarations, affidavits, and/or other evidence in response to the court's inclinations are prohibited unless authorized by the court. The parties are also reminded that they must comply with Local Rule 7.8 if they intend to rely on uncited authorities at the hearing.

         Occasionally, Judge Mollway does not announce an inclination, especially if materials are submitted to her right before the hearing. Because briefing on criminal motions closes just a few days before the hearing, it is not uncommon for her to be unable to announce an inclination on a criminal motion until the start of the hearing itself. Certainly if an evidentiary hearing is scheduled on matters necessary to a decision on either a civil or criminal motion, no inclination will be announced.

         Judge Mollway's inclinations may not be cited as authority for any proposition. However, the inclinations will be electronically filed for the convenience of the parties.

         Judge Mollway announces the following inclinations:

Bandalan v. CIT Bank, N.A., Civ. No.17-00245 SOM/RLP

         This case is almost identical to Hall v. CIT Bank, Civ. No. 17-00224 SOM/KJM. However the court rules, it is likely that the same reasoning will apply to both cases.

         The court asks the parties to come to the hearing prepared to address the following:

         1. Assuming the Corres are good faith purchasers for value with respect to the sale of the property to them, should they be parties to this action, which seeks the return of title to the property that the Corres' purchased? It appears that adding them to the case would destroy diversity. What do the parties suggest?

         2. The issues raised in the present motion are also raised in at least three other cases in this court that have been removed from state court: Capili v. CIT Bank N.A., Civ. No. 17-00243 HG/KJM; Hall v. CIT Bank, Civ. No. 17-00224 SOM/KJM; and Hishinuma v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Civ. No. 17-00219 HG/KJM. What is the status of other cases that have not been removed but involve the same issues?

a. Has a Hawaii circuit court ruled on whether a Land Court certificate of title has or lacks conclusive and unimpeachable ...

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.