David Alan Ezra

This case involves disabled students and the Hawaii Disability Rights Center challenging Hawaii's Act 163, which imposes a 20-year age limit on public high school attendance, as a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's requirement to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) until age 22 unless a state applies the same limit to general education students. Plaintiffs also alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, and argued that adult education programs like CB and GED allow general education students to continue past age 20, meaning special education students should not be denied services. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction without prejudice, granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment without prejudice, and found that plaintiffs failed to show regular state practice of placing general education students in adult programs beyond age 20 or to adequately plead certain claims. The decision rested on the lack of evidence that Act 163 is inconsistently applied compared to prior rulings in B.T. v. Department of Education and on procedural deficiencies in the complaint.

civil rightsfederal power

This case is a declaratory judgment action by Nautilus Insurance Company against its insured Hawk Transport Services, LLC, to determine whether a commercial general liability policy provides coverage for claims in an underlying federal lawsuit. The underlying suit, brought under CERCLA and Hawaii law, alleged that Hawk transported and disposed of hazardous solid waste on leased agricultural property, resulting in EPA removal costs exceeding $650,000 and related tort claims for waste, trespass, and nuisance. The court granted Nautilus's motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy afforded no coverage. It reasoned that the Total Pollution Exclusion, Contractor and Subcontractor Exclusion, and Auto Exclusion each independently barred all claims because they arose from Hawk's or its subcontractor's transportation and dumping of pollutants.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This consolidated bankruptcy appeal addresses whether native Hawaiian debtors' leasehold interests in real property under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA) qualify as property of the estate that must be valued in a hypothetical Chapter 7 liquidation under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4) when confirming a Chapter 13 plan. The debtors had proposed plans that estimated zero distribution to general unsecured creditors based on their valuation of the leaseholds as having no equity, but the trustee objected that higher market values would yield a greater recovery in liquidation. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, holding that the leaseholds are estate property because they could be transferred to other native Hawaiians with Department of Hawaiian Home Lands consent during liquidation. The court reasoned that nothing in the HHCA or fiduciary duties prevents such transfers and that the debtors failed to show the leases would have zero or negligible value in a Chapter 7 proceeding.

propertyprocedure

In this case, homeowners Michael A. Labuanan and Janell R.N. Lai-Labuanan sued U.S. Bank National Association, Bank of America, and other lenders over a 2006 mortgage loan on their Hawaii property, claiming predatory lending practices and violations of federal and state laws. The complaint alleged eleven counts, including TILA violations for rescission and damages, RESPA breaches, UDAP, fraud, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and claims related to securitization, lack of standing for foreclosure, and wrongful conversion of the note. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, finding that the TILA claims were time-barred or inapplicable to nonjudicial foreclosure, and that other claims lacked sufficient factual or legal support, while granting plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a Hawaii resident who received a medical malpractice settlement and invested the funds with defendants including Bank of New York Mellon entities and individual managers; after incurring losses tied to a line of credit and market downturn, the plaintiff sued in Hawaii state court alleging violations of Hawaii securities and consumer protection laws, breach of fiduciary duty, contract, negligence, misrepresentation, and related claims. Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss or transfer it pursuant to a forum selection clause in the September 10, 2007 investment account agreement designating California courts. The court granted the motion in part by enforcing the clause and transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, determining under the Bremen standard and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) that the clause was valid, applied to the dispute, and that private and public interest factors supported transfer rather than dismissal.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Sakugawa v. Countrywide Bank F.S.B., plaintiff Lorelei Aki Sakugawa sued Countrywide Bank and Service Link over a 2007 mortgage loan on her Hawaii property, claiming she was lured into a predatory loan through deception and improper qualification, with allegations spanning declaratory and injunctive relief, breach of implied covenant, TILA and RESPA violations, rescission, UDAP, breach of fiduciary duty, unconscionability, predatory lending, and quiet title. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissing all claims against the defendants except the TILA rescission claim, which survived. The core reasoning was that most counts lacked a cognizable legal theory or sufficient factual allegations when taken as true, such as inadequate pleading for contract or fiduciary claims and statutory bars or pleading deficiencies for others like UDAP and quiet title, while the TILA rescission claim met the minimum threshold for proceeding.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, pro se plaintiffs Keith and Jessica Isagawa sued HomeStreet Bank and Fidelity entities over a 2009 mortgage loan on their Hawaii property, claiming it was predatory and alleging violations including TILA, RESPA, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, UDAP, and quiet title. The court granted HomeStreet Bank's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice as to all defendants after plaintiffs failed to appear at the scheduled hearing or file any opposition, treating the matter as submitted under local rules. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to state any cognizable claim under Rule 12(b)(6) standards, as it lacked sufficient factual allegations, was barred by statutes of limitations for TILA and RESPA, did not plead required elements for state claims like tender for rescission or quiet title, and asserted no private right of action for certain regulatory violations.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case centered on a failed joint venture between BlueEarth Biofuels, LLC and Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. and Maui Electric Company, Ltd. to develop a biodiesel production facility on Maui, along with related dealings involving Aloha Petroleum, Ltd.; BlueEarth alleged breaches of non-disclosure and exclusivity agreements, misappropriation of trade secrets, and related tort and contract claims stemming from the 2006-2008 negotiations and agreements. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing counts four, seven, eight, and ten with prejudice, dismissing count six without prejudice, and allowing counts nine and eleven to proceed. The core reasoning included preemption of certain claims by the Hawaii Uniform Trade Secrets Act, failure to adequately plead independent bases for tort claims distinct from contract breaches, and application of novation principles to the agreements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved environmental nonprofit organizations suing the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, and related officials over a 2009 Final Rule implementing Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Hawaii longline fishery; the rule increased the annual allowable incidental interactions with loggerhead sea turtles, and plaintiffs challenged the validity of the accompanying 2008 Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement under statutes including the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Administrative Procedure Act. Hawaii Longline Association intervened as a defendant. Plaintiffs and the Federal Defendants jointly moved for entry of a stipulated injunction as a consent decree that would dismiss all claims with prejudice. The court granted the joint motion after finding the proposed decree fair, reasonable, equitable, and consistent with the public interest and applicable law, and denied the intervenor's pending summary judgment motion as moot.

environmentprocedure

This case involves a dispute between the parents of a student with ADHD eligible for special education and the Hawaii Department of Education regarding the student's individualized education program (IEP) for the 2009-2010 school year. The parents challenged the IEP's placement of the student in a public middle school rather than continuing at a private school, arguing that the IEP team failed to adequately consider recent documentation of the student's progress. The district court vacated the administrative hearings officer's decision upholding the IEP and remanded the case to the Department of Education, reasoning that the failure to properly incorporate the additional documentation into the IEP development process denied the student a free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

civil rightsfederal power

In Coles v. Eagle, a prisoner proceeding pro se sued Honolulu police officers Joshua Eagle and Elton Robertson, alleging they used excessive force during his April 2007 arrest for unauthorized control of a stolen vehicle and related offenses after a traffic stop. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity, but the court found genuine disputes of material fact regarding the objective reasonableness of the force used, particularly after the officers pulled Coles from the car, including conflicting accounts of resistance, strikes with a baton, kicks, and other actions before he was handcuffed. The court denied the motion, noting that summary judgment is granted sparingly in excessive force cases and that subjective motivations are irrelevant under Fourth Amendment analysis.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involves Allstate Insurance Company's request for a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify its policyholder, Aaron Miller, under a homeowners insurance policy in connection with an underlying wrongful death and negligence lawsuit. The underlying suit arose from a party at Miller's home where minors consumed alcohol, after which one minor drove and caused a fatal car accident. The court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy's exclusions for bodily injury arising from intentional or criminal acts by an insured and from the use of a motor vehicle barred coverage. The court reasoned that the claims against Miller all stemmed directly from his alleged provision of alcohol to minors, which triggered both exclusions, and thus no duty to defend or indemnify existed under the policy terms.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case concerns a dispute over a 2006 loan of approximately $220,000 made by Agnes Tahilan to Michael Folkes to help him purchase Friendly Care Home Health Services, Inc.; after Tahilan's death, her estate sued Folkes for repayment of principal and interest, alleging breach of contract along with claims of misrepresentation and related causes of action, while Folkes asserted that the loan was orally agreed to be forgiven upon Tahilan's death. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and granted the plaintiff's alternative request to strike the defense. It reasoned that material facts remained genuinely disputed regarding the existence and terms of any oral forgiveness agreement and that the defendant had failed to submit admissible evidence or comply with procedural requirements to support his opposition or defenses, though the statute of frauds issues did not warrant dismissal at this stage.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Robinson v. Plourde, plaintiffs brought §1983 claims alleging that defendant unconstitutionally interfered with their rights to custody and medical decision-making for a child in adoption proceedings. Following Ninth Circuit remand, partial summary judgment, and settlement, plaintiffs moved for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988 as prevailing parties. The magistrate judge applied the lodestar method to calculate reasonable hours and rates, recommended partial approval after reductions for billing issues, and the district court adopted the recommendation without objection, awarding $20,929.57. The ruling rested on plaintiffs' success on significant merits issues and standard fee-calculation factors.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case involves defendant Rodney King facing a second superseding indictment with multiple counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 for sex trafficking of minors (girls under age 18) and related conspiracy charges under § 371. King filed three motions to dismiss various counts, arguing that the indictment failed to allege the victims' actual ages as a required element (instead charging only the defendant's knowledge of their ages) and that several counts were multiplicitous. The court denied all motions, reasoning that the indictment properly stated the offenses because the statutory language allows punishment based on the defendant's knowledge that victims were between 14 and 18, and that any multiplicity could be remedied by vacating duplicative convictions after trial if necessary rather than dismissing counts pretrial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over option agreements for the purchase of Hawaii property and business assets between plaintiff Shikwan Sung and defendants including the Hamiltons (as trustees), Hula Brothers, Inc., Big Island Land Co., and Gregory Gadd, along with related claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, rescission, unjust enrichment, conversion, misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, interference with contract, and other torts, plus a counterclaim by the Hamiltons for property damage. The court granted in part and denied in part the Hamilton defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's remaining claims, granted the Hamiltons' motion for partial summary judgment on their counterclaim, and granted summary judgment to Big Island Land Co. and Gadd on all claims against them. The rulings rested on prior determinations that no enforceable contract for the property existed, evaluation of the elements and evidence for each cause of action, and findings that certain claims were moot or unsupported.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In United States v. King, the defendant faced multiple federal counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, including involving minors, arising from his alleged role as a pimp. The government sought to introduce expert testimony from Dr. Sharon Cooper on topics including victim recruitment, susceptibility factors, and methods of control through force and coercion. The defendant moved in limine to exclude the testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, and 702, Daubert standards, constitutional protections, and Rule 16 disclosure requirements, arguing lack of qualifications and improper profiling. After a Daubert hearing, the court denied the motion, finding the expert qualified by knowledge and experience, the testimony reliable and relevant to prove elements of the charges, and the government's disclosures sufficient when supplemented by the hearing. The court imposed limits barring testimony on broader societal impacts or unrelated extreme violence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a breach of contract claim by Wyndham Vacation Resorts against Architects Hawaii Limited (AHL) regarding a hotel renovation project in Waikiki, Hawaii. Wyndham alleged that AHL failed to ensure jetted whirlpool bathtubs were installed in all master bathrooms as required by the project specifications and contract. The court granted Wyndham's motion for summary judgment, finding AHL liable because the contract required AHL to coordinate subconsultants and remain fully responsible for the accuracy of all designs and specifications, including correcting any errors at its own expense. The court reasoned that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding AHL's breach, as non-jetted tubs were installed contrary to requirements, and AHL had not disputed its contractual obligations or performance by Wyndham.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned defendant Rodney King's motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained after his arrest on a supervised release violation warrant in a hotel lobby, where FBI agents subsequently entered and searched his hotel room without a warrant, recovered items linked to alleged sex trafficking, and later searched electronic devices pursuant to a warrant. King argued that he retained a privacy interest in the room, that no warrant exceptions applied, that his statements were involuntary, and that the computer warrant was invalid under the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion in full, holding that the room search was permissible due to exigent circumstances, consent from a co-occupant, or plain view, that statements were voluntary, and that the device search complied with warrant requirements and good-faith standards. The court applied precedents including recent en banc authority from Doody v. Schriro to reach these conclusions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Allstate Insurance seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds under a homeowners liability policy for claims arising from a fatal SUV accident on rental property. The underlying lawsuit alleged negligence by the property owners for allowing vehicles in a playground area, resulting in the death of a child and injury to another. The court granted summary judgment to Allstate, holding that the policy's exclusion for bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, or use of any motorized land vehicle applied, as the claims stemmed from the vehicle accident. The court reasoned that the exclusion was unambiguous and barred coverage even for premises liability claims connected to the vehicle use, with no potential for coverage triggering a duty to defend.

torts & liabilityproperty