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.

Ferretti v. Beach Club Maui, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

August 2, 2018

ANTHONY FERRETTI and ELAINE FERRETTI, Plaintiffs,
v.
BEACH CLUB MAUI, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' RULE 60(B) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, ECF NO. 43

          J. Michael Seabright, Chief United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On June 27, 2018, Plaintiffs Anthony Ferretti (“Mr. Ferretti”) and his wife, Elaine Ferretti (“Mrs. Ferretti”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant Motion to vacate this court's June 21, 2018 Order granting (1) Defendant Beach Club Maui, Inc.'s (“BCM” or Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, and granting (2) Plaintiffs' Request to Amend Complaint (the “June 21 Order”) (ECF No. 42). ECF No. 43. Plaintiffs contend that the court's ruling that Hawaii Rule of Civil Procedure (“HRCP”) 41(a)(1)(B)'s two-dismissal rule applies to Mr. Ferretti's claims and Mrs. Ferretti's derivative claims, and therefore, that those claims are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion is erroneous. For the reasons set forth below, the court disagrees. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On January 18, 2016, Plaintiffs, who were passengers on a cruise ship operated by Norwegian Cruise Lines (“NCL”), bought and participated in a beach excursion operated by BCM. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 11-12, 14-18. Mr. Ferretti alleges that he was seriously injured during the course of this excursion. In 2017, Mr. Ferretti filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against NCL, BCM, and other entities asserting claims arising from the January 18, 2016 incident. See Ferretti v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 17-20202 (GAYLES) (S.D. Fla. 2017) (the “Florida action”), ECF No. 8-4. On May 2, 2017, Mr. Ferretti voluntarily dismissed his claims against BCM in that action. See ECF No. 8-5. The Florida action remains pending against NCL.

         On January 4, 2018, Mr. and Mrs. Ferretti filed an action in the State of Hawaii Circuit Court for the Second Circuit (Maui) asserting claims against BCM arising out of the same January 18, 2016 incident. See Ferretti v. Beach Club Maui, Inc., Civ. No. 18-1-0005 (the “state court action”), ECF No. 8-6. Four days later, on January 8, 2018, Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their complaint in the state court action. See ECF No. 8-7. And on January 8, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the instant action against BCM again asserting claims arising out of the same January 18, 2016 incident. ECF No. 1.

         The June 21 Order determined that Hawaii's “two-dismissal rule applies to Mr. Ferretti's claims and Mrs. Ferretti's derivative claims, and that those claims are therefore barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.” June 21 Order at 14; Ferretti v. Beach Club Maui, Inc., 2018 WL 3078742, at *6 (D. Haw. June 21, 2018). On June 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6). ECF No. 43. BCM filed an Opposition on July 11, 2018, and Plaintiffs filed a Reply on July 24, 2018. ECF Nos. 52, 55.

         Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing.

         III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

         Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration of a final judgment, order, or proceeding where the movant has shown: “(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances' which would justify relief.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60 is generally appropriate upon a showing of one of three grounds: (1) the availability of new evidence; (2) an intervening change in controlling law; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Id. at 1263; Sierra Club, Haw. Chapter v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 486 F.Supp.2d 1185, 1188 (D. Haw. 2007) (“The Ninth Circuit has recognized that Rule 60(b) may be used to reconsider legal issues and to reconsider the court's own mistake or inadvertence.”) (citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. E.E.O.C., 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1982)).

         Local Rule 60.1 authorizes reconsideration of interlocutory orders upon a showing of one of the same grounds: “(a) Discovery of new material facts not previously available; (b) Intervening change in law; [or] (c) Manifest error of law or fact.” “A ‘manifest error' is ‘[a]n error that is plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the record.'” Noetzel v. Haw. Med. Serv. Assoc., 2016 WL 4033099, at *2 (July 27, 2016) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary, 660 (10th ed. 2014)).

         A successful motion for reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the court should reconsider its prior decision and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Gordon v. Sequeira, 2018 WL 1020113 (D. Haw. Feb. 22, 2018); White v. Sabatino, 424 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration, and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision. See Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” White, 424 F.Supp.2d at 1274 (quoting Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003)).

         IV. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiffs argue that the court erred in applying the two-dismissal rule for two reasons: (1) the “same claim” requirement was not met because there were different plaintiffs and defendants in the Florida and state court actions, and (2) the voluntary dismissals “did not dispose of the entirety of plaintiffs' claim.” Mot. at 7-8. Plaintiffs further contend that the June 21 Order's determination that the court lacks discretion to allow Mr. Ferretti's claims to proceed is erroneous, arguing ...


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.