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.

Young v. Kraus

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

April 9, 2018

CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL M. KRAUS, Owner of Tree Works Inc., COUNTY OF HAWAII, POLICE DEPARTMENT, PATRICK T. KIHARA as a Police Officer in the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, AND DOE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

          LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On January 22, 2018, the magistrate judge filed his Findings and Recommendation to Grant Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff (“1/22/18 F&R”). [Dkt. no. 152.] On January 24, 2018, the magistrate judge filed an entering order as a supplement to the 1/22/18 F&R (“1/24/18 F&R Supplement”). [Dkt. no. 154.] On February 16, 2018, this Court filed an order adopting the 1/22/18 F&R, as modified by the 1/24/18 F&R Supplement (“2/16/18 Order”). [Dkt. no. 155.]

         On March 9, 2018 pro se Plaintiff Christopher Young (“Plaintiff”) filed a document titled

Verification of Plaintiff's Objection to Judge Kevin S.C. Chang's Findings and Recommendation to Grant Defendants' Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal Against Plaintiff [Dkt. No. 152] ¶ 01/22/18 and Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi's Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 155] ¶ 2/16/18 for Failure to Address Proof of Evidence in the Record 1-155.

[Dkt. no. 156.] Plaintiff's filing has been construed as a motion for reconsideration of the 2/16/18 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”). [EO: Court Order Regarding Pltf.'s “Objection” Filed on March 9, 2017 [sic], filed 3/12/18 (dkt. no. 157).] The Court has considered the Motion for Reconsideration as 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. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied for the reasons set forth below.

         BACKGROUND

         The parties and this Court are familiar with the factual and procedural background of this case, and only the background relevant to the Motion for Reconsideration will be repeated here.

         At the time of the 1/22/18 F&R, Defendants Michael M. Kraus and Tree Works, Inc. (“the Tree Works Defendants”) were the only remaining defendants in this case. See Order Denying the Portion of Pltf.'s Motion Seeking Reconsideration of this Court's January 27, 2017 Order and Denying Without Prejudice the Portion of the Motion Attempting to Appeal the Order or Rulings Issued by the Magistrate Judge, filed 2/17/17 (dkt. no. 111) (“2/17/17 Reconsideration Order”), at 9 (terminating Defendants the County of Hawai`i, the County of Hawai`i Police Department, and Patrick T. Kihara as parties).[1]

         The 1/22/18 F&R recommended that this Court grant the Tree Works Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff (“Motion for Sanctions”), [filed 12/5/17 (dkt. no. 142)]. The Tree Works Defendants sought dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against them on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with orders filed on June 23, 2017, October 12, 2017, and November 7, 2017. [Motion for Sanctions at 2; Mem. in Supp. of Motion for Sanctions at 7.] Plaintiff did not file a memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Sanctions, but presented arguments at the January 22, 2018 hearing on the Motion for Sanctions. [Minutes, filed 1/22/18 (dkt. no. 151).]

         In the 1/22/18 F&R, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff's failure to comply with multiple court orders “resulted in additional motions practice and . . . interfer[ed] with the orderly progression of this action.” [1/22/18 F&R at 7.] In addition, Plaintiff's “abusive and unfounded use of the appeals process . . . impede[d] the proceedings.” [Id.] The burdensome delays caused by Plaintiff's tactics “threaten[ed] to interfere with the rightful decision of the case, ” and further delays “would be unduly prejudicial” to the Tree Works Defendants. [Id. at 8.] The magistrate judge also found prior attempts to discourage Plaintiff's tactics through sanctions less drastic than dismissal were unsuccessful. The magistrate judge therefore recommended dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the Tree Works Defendants and an award of attorney's fees incurred in connection with the Motion for Sanctions. [Id. at 9-10.] The 1/24/18 F&R Supplement recommended the Tree Works Defendants be awarded $826.50 in attorney's fees. [Dkt. no. 154.] As previously noted, the 2/16/18 Order adopted the 1/22/18 F&R, as modified by the 1/24/18 F&R Supplement.

         In the instant Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues reconsideration of the 2/16/18 Order is warranted because: this Court, the magistrate judge, the defendants, and defense counsel are corrupt; the 1/22/18 F&R did not address all of the relevant evidence in this case; this case was improperly removed from state court; the Ninth Circuit is also corrupt, and this case has been improperly allowed to proceed while Plaintiff's Ninth Circuit appeals were pending; Kraus's liability for the injuries Plaintiff suffered in the motor vehicle accident at issue in this case has never been addressed; Kihara's liability for failing to issue a citation regarding the accident has not been addressed; and this case presents many issues regarding the violation of Hawai`i insurance laws, which should be addressed in the state courts.

         STANDARD

         The 2/16/18 Order was a case dispositive order. In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, his Motion for Reconsideration is liberally construed as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. See, e.g., Pregana v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Civil No. 14-00226 DKW-KSC, 2015 WL 1966671, at *2 (D. Hawai`i Apr. 30, 2015) (“The Court liberally construes the [plaintiffs'] filings because they are proceeding pro se.” (citing Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987))).

         Rule 59(e) states: “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Plaintiffs may seek reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e), even though final judgment has not been entered in this case. See Grandinetti v. Sells, CIV. NO. 16-00517 DKW/RLP, 2016 WL 6634868, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Nov. 8, 2016) (“When a ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order . . . a motion for reconsideration may be construed as either a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a ...


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.