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.

Salem v. Arakawa

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

July 26, 2017

CHRISTOPHER SALEM, Plaintiff,
v.
ALAN ARAKAWA, individually and in his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE COUNTY OF MAUI;, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISTRICT COURT ORDER OF JAN 20TH 2017 AND ORDER OF MAY 3, 2017 ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Christopher Salem's (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration of District Court Order of Jan 20th 2017 and Order of May 3, 2017 Accepting Magistrate Judge Findings and Recommendations (“Motion for Reconsideration”), filed on May 23, 2017. [Dkt. no. 207.]

         Defendants Alan Arakawa, Patrick Wong, Keith Regan, David Goode, Milton Arakawa, William Spence, John Minn, and Jeffrey Hunt, all in their individual capacities (collectively “Individual Defendants”), filed their memorandum in opposition on June 5, 2017. [Dkt. no. 210.] On June 13, 2017, Defendants County of Maui, Mayor Alan Arakawa, Corporation Counsel Patrick Wong, former Director of the Department of Finance Keith Regan, Director of Public Works David Goode, former Director of Public Works Milton Arakawa, Director of the Department of Planning William Spence, former Director of the Department of Planning John Minn, and former Director of the Department of Planning Jeffrey Hunt, all in their official capacities (collectively “County Defendants”) filed a joinder to the Individual Defendants' memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration (“Joinder”). [Dkt. no. 216.] 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”). Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and the County Defendants' Joinder are denied for the reasons set forth below.

         BACKGROUND

         The background of this matter is well known to the parties, and the Court will only repeat the information that is relevant to the instant motion. In its Order Dismissing Case With Prejudice, filed on May 3, 2017 (“5/3/17 Order”), the Court dismissed all of the remaining claims in this case with prejudice, and directed the Clerk's Office to enter final judgment and close this case on May 24, 2017, unless Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration by May 22, 2017. [Dkt. no. 201 at 6-7.]

         The Motion for Reconsideration seeks reconsideration of the 5/3/17 Order because: (1) the magistrate judge's order filed on December 20, 2016 (“12/20/16 Order”), [dkt. no. 163, ] was the result of manifest error of law and fact; [Motion for Reconsideration at 7-17;] (2) Plaintiff has newly discovered evidence; [id. at 17-18;] and (3) the magistrate judge allegedly treated Plaintiff unfairly and the Court must “prevent manifest injustice” [id. at 18-19]. The Court will address each of these arguments in turn.

         STANDARD

         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 for Joinder

         In an Entering Order filed on June 6, 2017 (“6/6/17 EO”), the Court noted that it would consider the Motion for Reconsideration without a hearing, the Individual Defendants had filed a memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration, and no further briefing would be accepted. [Dkt. no. 212.] A week later, the County Defendants filed their Joinder. Given the Court's explicit instructions in the 6/6/17 EO, the Joinder is denied and will not be considered by the Court in ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration.

         II. Timeliness of the Motion for ...


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.