United States District Court, D. Hawaii
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Mollway announces the following inclinations:
Bandalan v. CIT Bank, N.A., Civ. No.17-00245 SOM/RLP
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.
court asks the parties to come to the hearing prepared to
address the following:
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
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