United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MARK N. BEGLEY, Plaintiff,
COUNTY OF KAUAI, KAUAI POLICE DEPARTMENT, DARRYL PERRY, ROY ASHER, MICHAEL CONTRADES AND DOE DEFENDANTS 16-100, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION REGARDING ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT MICHAEL
CONTRADES' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED HEREIN ON AUGUST 31, 2018
E. KOBAYASHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
September 14, 2018, Defendant Michael Contrades, in his
individual capacity (“Contrades”), filed his
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint
Filed Herein on August 31, 2018 (“Motion to
Dismiss”). [Dkt. no. 360.] On December 27, 2018, this
Court issued an order that, inter alia, denied the
Motion to Dismiss (“12/27/18 Order”). [Dkt. no.
Before the Court is Contrades's motion for
reconsideration of the 12/27/18 Order (“Motion for
Reconsideration”), filed on January 10, 2019. [Dkt. no.
443.] Plaintiff Mark N. Begley (“Plaintiff”)
filed his memorandum in opposition on January 24, 2019, and
Contrades filed his reply on February 6, 2019. [Dkt. nos.
448, 460.] 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 for the United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii (“Local
Rules”). Contrades's Motion for Reconsideration is
hereby denied for the reasons set forth below.
relevant factual and procedural background of this case is
set forth in the 12/27/18 Order, which denied Contrades's
Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Plaintiff's claims
against Contrades are: aiding and abetting, inciting,
compelling, or coercing retaliation, under Haw. Rev. Stat.
Chapter 368 and § 378-2(a)(3) (“Count II”);
and intentional infliction of emotional distress
(“IIED” and “Count IV”). [Third
Amended Complaint, filed 8/31/18 (dkt. no. 349), at
¶¶ 133-36, 142-44.] The denial of Contrades's
Motion to Dismiss was based on numerous rulings, only one of
which is at issue in the Motion for Reconsideration. This
Court ruled that, as to Count II and Count IV, the Third
Amended Complaint's factual allegations - in particular
paragraphs 122.f, r, t, v, w, x - stated a plausible basis to
support a finding that Contrades was not entitled to
qualified immunity/conditional privilege because Contrades
acted with malice. 12/27/18 Order, 2018 WL 6816045, at *4-6.
Motion for Reconsideration, Contrades argues reconsideration
is necessary because: 1) the Third Amended Complaint does not
allege Contrades acted with a state of mind or an intent that
rose to the level of malice; and 2) Contrades's email
communication described in the cited portions of paragraph
122 cannot support a finding of malice because
Contrades's actions related to those emails were
motivated by a proper purpose.
brings his Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule
60.1(c), which states: “Motions for reconsideration of
interlocutory orders may be brought only upon the following
grounds . . . (c) Manifest error of law or fact.” This
Court has previously stated 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. Hawaii June 2,
2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). . . .
“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).
Heu v. Waldorf=Astoria Mgmt. LLC, CIVIL 17-00365
LEK-RLP, 2018 WL 2011905, at *1 (D. Hawai'i Apr. 30,
2018) (alteration in Heu) (some citations omitted).
arguments Contrades makes in the Motion for Reconsideration -
that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient factual allegations
regarding malice and that Contrades's actions had a
proper purpose - were raised in connection with the Motion to
Dismiss and considered by this Court. See, e.g.,
Mem. in Supp. of Motion to Dismiss at 12 (“There is
nothing in the Third Amended Complaint to indicate that
Contrades' actions were not within the parameters of his
duties as Deputy Chief.”); id. at 24-25
(arguing Plaintiff “cannot, as a matter of law, state
any viable claim against Contrades that demonstrate [sic]
malice that resulted in an adverse employment action”).
Contrades merely disagrees with this Court's analysis of
the factual allegations in the Third Amended Complaint and
with this Court's conclusions regarding the legal issues
presented in the Motion to Dismiss. Contrades's
disagreement does not constitute a ground for reconsideration
of the 12/27/18 Order. See Davis, 2014 WL 2468348,
at *3 n.4. Further, to the extent that Contrades argues other
evidence shows he did not act with malice and/or his actions
had a legitimate purpose, nothing in the 12/27/18 Order
prevents him from revisiting the qualified
immunity/conditional privilege issue in a motion for summary
judgment and/or at trial. Contrades has failed to present any
ground that warrants reconsideration of the 12/27/18 Order.
basis of the foregoing, Contrades's January 10, 2019
Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Order Denying Defendant
Michael Contrades' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Third Amended Complaint Filed Herein on August 31, 2018 is