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.

Hyland v. Office of Housing & Community Development

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

September 29, 2017

LANRIC HYLAND, Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICE OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART: (1) DEFENDANT AINAKEA SENIOR RESIDENCES LLLP'S MOTION TO STRIKE; AND (2) DEFENDANT OFFICE OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, COUNTY OF HAWAII'S JOINDER

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         On July 31, 2017, Plaintiff Lanric Hyland (“Plaintiff”) filed his “Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Damages and Other Appropriate Relief” (“Second Amended Complaint”). [Dkt. no. 108.] Before the Court are:Defendant Ainakea Senior Residences LLLP's (“Ainakea”) motion to strike Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation (“HICDC”) and Plaintiff's request for class certification from the Second Amended Complaint (“Motion to Strike”), filed on August 14, 2017; and Defendant Office of Housing & Community Development, County of Hawaii's (“the County” or “OHCD”) “Substantive Joinder” to the Motion to Strike (“Joinder”), filed on August 15, 2017. [Dkt. nos. 116, 118.] Plaintiff filed his memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Strike and the Joinder on September 24, 2017.[Dkt. no. 128.] The Court concludes that no reply is necessary.

         The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”). The hearing on the Motion to Strike and the County's Joinder, currently scheduled for October 16, 2017, is therefore VACATED.[1] Ainakea's Motion and the County's Joinder are hereby granted in part and denied in part for the reasons set forth below.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Joinder

         The County calls the Joinder a substantive joinder. In addition to agreeing with Ainakea's request for relief, the Joinder states, “insofar as Plaintiff purports to name any County of Hawai`i defendants (other than OHCD), such as Mayor Harry Kim or Director Neil Gyotaku, those parties should also be stricken and/or the claims against them dismissed.” [Joinder at 2.]

         “‘Substantive joinder' means a joinder based on a memorandum supplementing the motion . . . joined in.” Local Rule LR7.9. Because the County did not attach a memorandum to the Joinder, the Joinder is not a substantive joinder. It is merely a “joinder of simple agreement, ” see id., representing the County's agreement that Ainakea is entitled to the relief requested in the Motion to Strike. To the extent the Joinder seeks relief beyond that requested in the Motion to Strike, the Joinder is denied.

         II. Motion to Strike

         This Court's June 30, 2017 “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's June 9, 2016 Order and August 1, 2016 Order; and Withdrawing this Court's March 16, 2017 Order” (“6/30/17 Order”) granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint consistent with the terms of that order. [Dkt. no. 105.[2] Ainakea asks this Court to: strike HICDC from the Second Amended Complaint or dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims against HICDC; and strike the Second Amended Complaint's request for class certification. Ainakea argues that the 6/30/17 Order did not grant Plaintiff leave either to add HICDC as a defendant or to request class certification.

         A. HICDC

         Plaintiff points out that he does not describe HICDC as a defendant in the Second Amended Complaint, and he does not assert any claim against it. HICDC is listed within a section titled “The Parties and Persona.” [Second Amended Complaint at pgs. 12, 14 (emphasis added).] The Second Amended Complaint states that Plaintiff “intends to file a Motion for Joinder of HICDC.”[3] [Id. at 14 n.2.] However, Plaintiff's counsel “inadvertently erroneously listed HICDC as one of the Defendants in the title caption of the case.” [Mem. in Opp. at 5.] Plaintiff therefore does not oppose striking HICDC from the case caption. [Id.]

         In light of Plaintiff's representations, the Motion to Strike is granted insofar as this Court directs the Clerk's Office to strike HICDC from the case caption. This ruling has no effect on the pending Motion to Join HICDC.

         B. Request for Class Certification

         Plaintiff describes the case as a class action and prays for class certification. [Second Amended Complaint at pgs. 1, 127.] Although the 6/30/17 Order did not expressly grant Plaintiff leave to file a “class action, ” it stated that Plaintiff could pursue the “Representative Claims” because he was previously denied leave to include those claims because of his pro se status, and he is now represented by counsel.[4] 2017 WL 2829595, at *6. Plaintiff's inclusion of the class allegations and the prayer for class certification in the Second Amended Complaint did not violate the 6/30/17 Order. The Motion ...


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.