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.

United States v. Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

August 26, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
SANDWICH ISLES COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL., Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS.

          ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT ALBERT HEE, ECF NOS. 132, 134; AND (2) DENYING HEE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 127

          J. Michael Seabright Chief United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This Order follows from the court's July 22, 2019 Order in this case that (1) partially granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff United States of America (“Plaintiff” or the “United States”) against Defendant Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc. (“Sandwich Isles”), (2) dismissed counterclaims asserted by Sandwich Isles against the United States, and (3) dismissed counter- or third-party claims asserted by Sandwich Isles against government officials in their individual capacities. See ECF No. 161, United States v. Sandwich Isles Commc'ns, Inc., __F.Supp.3d__, 2019 WL 3293641 (D. Haw. July 22, 2019) (the “July 22, 2019 Order”). Here, the court addresses three motions regarding pro se co-Defendant Albert Hee's (“Hee”) First Amended Counterclaim.

         First, Hee seeks summary judgment on Count One (“Violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause”) of his counterclaim against the United States. ECF No. 127. Second, the United States[1] moves to dismiss all counts of Hee's counterclaim. ECF No. 132. And third, Pai, Hone, Gillett, and Mattey (collectively, the “Individual-Capacity Counter-Defendants”), move to strike or dismiss all counts asserted against them in their personal capacities. ECF No. 134.

         The court decides the motions without an oral hearing under Local Rule 7.2(d). Based on the following, as well as for some of the reasons explained in the July 22, 2019 Order, the court (1) DENIES Hee's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count One of Hee's counterclaim (2) GRANTS the United States' Motion to Dismiss Hee's counterclaim; and (3) GRANTS the Individual-Capacity Counter-Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Hee's claims against them in their personal capacities.

         II. DISCUSSION

         The court relies on and incorporates the July 22, 2019 Order for this action's background and history, and thus the court does not set forth all the details alleged in the Complaint, and in Sandwich Isles' and Hee's counterclaims. Hee's counterclaim is similar to Sandwich Isles' counterclaim, and the motions to dismiss them involve some similar issues. Consequently, the July 22, 2019 Order's analysis (and dismissal) of Sandwich Isles' counterclaim is especially relevant in addressing the present motions. See Sandwich Isles, __F.Supp.3d at__, 2019 WL 3293641, at *11-20 (dismissing counterclaims for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. (“ECOA”); the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 254 et seq.; and claims based on Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)).

         Hee's counterclaim alleges four counts against both the United States and the Individual-Capacity Counter-Defendants:[2]

• Count One (“Violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause”), alleging that “[i]t is a physical taking when Plaintiff USA sells Sandwich Isles infrastructure to another company, ” and “[i]t is a regulatory taking when Plaintiff USA reduces the amount of [Universal Service Funds (“USF”)] Sandwich Isles is entitled to after Sandwich Isles has incurred expenses based on the amount of [USF] Plaintiff USA previously approved.” For this, it alleges that “Sandwich Isles has incurred expenses based on the amount of [USF] Plaintiff USA previously approved.”
• Count Two (“Violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the [Equal Credit Opportunity Act]”), alleging in part that “[a]t all times, Sandwich Isles has been owned by one or more Native Hawaiians, ” and “[i]t is a violation of the ECOA to discriminate against Sandwich Isles in any loan transactions.”
• Count Three (“Violation of Good Faith and Fair Dealings”), alleging in part that
[t]he loan contracts [between the United States and Sandwich Isles] become unconscionable contracts of adhesion when Plaintiff USA drafts the contract based on Sandwich Isles receiving [USF], Plaintiff USA provides sufficient [USF] for over 10 years, Plaintiff USA reduces to $0.00 the amount of [USF] Sandwich Isles receives, then forecloses on the loan contracts and seeks to obtain any shortfall from Sandwich Isles, its former officers, directors and stockholder of its parent.
• Count Four (“Defamation and Slander”) alleging, in part, that “Plaintiff USA and Counterclaim defendants have defamed and slandered me by making false statements to the public that they know or should have known and have the resources to determine are false.”

ECF No. 126 at PageID #1703.

         Given that background, the court proceeds directly to analyzing the three motions regarding Hee's counterclaim, starting with the motions to dismiss.

         A. The United ...


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.