United States District Court, D. Hawaii
CHRISTOPHER ZYDA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs,
FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS, FOUR SEASONS HOLDINGS, INC., FOUR SEASONS HUALALAI RESORT, HUALALAI RESIDENTIAL, LLC, DBA HUALALAI REALTY; HUALALAI INVESTORS, LLC, KAUPULEHU MAKAI VENTURE, HUALALAI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, HUALALAI VILLAS & HOMES, HUALALAI INVESTORS, LLC, HUALALAI RENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, DOES 1-100, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT,
FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF, FILED JUNE 14, 2019 [DKT.
E.. KOBAYASHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26, 2019, Defendants Hualalai Investors, LLC; Hualalai
Residential, LLC; Hualalai Rental Management, LLC; Four
Seasons Hotels Limited; and Four Seasons Holdings, Inc.
(“Defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss
Third Amended Complaint, for Damages and Declaratory Relief,
Filed June 14, 2019 [Dkt. 203] (“Motion”). [Dkt.
no. 209.] Pursuant to this Court's order, Defendants
filed a supplemental memorandum on July 12, 2019. [Dkt. nos.
213 (entering order), 218.]
Christopher Zyda (“Zyda”), on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated (collectively
“Class”), filed his memorandum in opposition on
July 26, 2019. [Dkt. no. 223.] The Court finds this matter
suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule
LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii (“Local
Rules”). Defendants' Motion is granted as to the
request for punitive damages, and the Motion is denied in all
relevant factual background of this case is set forth in the
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on June 24, 2019
(“6/24/19 Order”). [Dkt. no. 207. The operative
pleading when Defendants filed their Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (“Summary Judgment Motion”) on
April 3, 2019 was the Second Amended Class Action Complaint
for Damages, Declaratory, and Injunctive Relief
(“Second Amended Complaint”), filed on April 30,
2018. [Dkt. nos. 89 (Second Amended Complaint), 155 (6/24/19
Order).] However, while the Summary Judgment Motion was
pending, the parties stipulated to allow the filing of the
Third Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and
Declaratory Relief (“Third Amended Complaint”).
[Third Amended Complaint, filed 6/14/19 (dkt. no. 203);
stipulation & order, filed 6/14/19 (dkt. no. 204)
(“6/14/19 Stipulation & Order”).] The parties
stipulated that the Summary Judgment Motion applied to the
Third Amended Complaint “since it is not materially
different from the Second Amended Complaint for purpose of
the motion.” [6/14/19 Stipulation & Order at ¶
judgment was granted as to Count IV (promissory
estoppel/detrimental reliance), Count V (violation of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing), Count VI (negligent
misrepresentation), Count VII (estoppel), and Count VIII
(unjust enrichment). The Summary Judgment Motion was denied
as to the portion of Count III alleging an unfair or
deceptive acts or practices (“UDAP”) claim.
6/24/19 Order, 2019 WL 2583479, at *1, *8. Defendants did
not move for summary judgment as to the portion of Count III
alleging an unfair methods of competition
(“UMOC”) claim. Id. at *2. Thus, the
only claims remaining in the Third Amended Complaint are the
UDAP claim and the UMOC claim, both of which are brought
pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 480.
instant Motion, Defendants seek the dismissal of: 1) the
Class's prayer for disgorgement, punitive damages, and
rescission; and 2) Zyda's UDAP claim.
time Defendants filed the instant Motion, the dispositive
motions deadline had passed. See Rule 16 Scheduling
Order, filed 4/11/18 (dkt. no. 84), at ¶ 7 (stating the
deadline was 4/3/19). Thus, before the merits of the Motion
can be considered, Defendants must establish good cause to
amend the scheduling order. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
16(b)(4). This district court has stated:
The Rule 16(b) good cause inquiry focuses on the diligence of
the party seeking to modify the scheduling order.
Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087
(9th Cir. 2002). The pretrial schedule may be modified if the
deadline could not have been reasonably met despite the
diligence of the party seeking the extension. Id.
(citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975
F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)) (internal quotation marks and
. . . Rule 16 is designed to prevent parties from benefitting
from carelessness, unreasonability, or gamesmanship. In
re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation, 2014 WL
4954634, *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2014) (citing Orozco v.
Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc., 2013 WL 3941318, at *3 (E.D.
Cal. July 30, 2013)). . . .
Diligence of the party seeking amendment is the critical
issue in the good cause determination. The diligence required
for a showing of good cause has two parts:
(1) diligence in discovering the basis for amendment; and,
(2) diligence in seeking amendment once the basis for
amendment has ...