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.

Iseke v. City and County of Honolulu

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

December 29, 2017

MARVIN ISEKE, ALICE UBANDO, SHIRLEY ANN LESSARY, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT'S SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 ORDER

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.

         On September 20, 2017, this Court issued the Order: (1) Granting the City's Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Denying the City's Motion to Strike as Moot; (4) Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief as Moot; and (5) Granting HUD's Second Motion to Dismiss (“9/20/17 Order”). [Dkt. no. 143.] On October 5, 2017, pro se Plaintiffs Marvin Iseke, Alice Ubando, and Shirley Ann Lessary (“Plaintiffs”) filed a motion for reconsideration of the 9/20/17 (“Motion for Reconsideration”). [Dkt. no. 144.] Defendant City and County of Honolulu (the “City”) and Defendant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD, ” and collectively, “Defendants”) each filed its memorandum opposition on October 23, 2017. [Dkt. nos. 146, 147.] Plaintiffs filed their reply on November 8, 2017. [Dkt. no. 148.] The Court has considered the Motion for Reconsideration as a non-hearing matter 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 denied for the reasons set forth below.

         BACKGROUND

         The background of this matter is fully set forth in this Court's 9/20/17 Order. The 9/20/17 Order granted the City's motion for summary judgment on alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), finding no evidence that the City's decision-making process was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law. [9/20/17 Order at 16-31.] The 9/20/17 Order also granted HUD's motion to dismiss because: 1) Count II was barred by sovereign immunity; and 2) Counts I and II failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. [Id. at 31-39.] Plaintiffs now argue that reconsideration is appropriate because: 1) the Court's impartiality might reasonably be questioned; 2) the Court did not hear oral argument; 3) dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim against HUD was unfair because Plaintiffs had been denied leave to file a second amended complaint; and 4) the 9/20/17 Order misapplied the relevant law.

         STANDARD

         I. Motion for Reconsideration

         This 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). 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. Hawai`i May 1, 2013) (citing School District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)).

Banks v. McHugh, Civil No. 11-00798 LEK-KSC, 2014 WL 5581326, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Oct. 31, 2014). “Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.” White v. Sabatino, 424 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1274 (D. Hawai`i 2006).

         In order to justify reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence, the movant must show that the evidence “(i) is newly discovered; (ii) could not have been discovered through due diligence; and (iii) is of such a material and controlling nature as will probably change the outcome.” United States v. Tanoue, 165 F.R.D. 96, 97 (D. Hawai`i 1995) (citing Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987)), aff'd 94 F.3d 1342 (9th Cir. 1996).

         II. Recusal

         28 U.S.C. § 455 states in pertinent part:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his ...

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.