District Court, D. Hawaii — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Peatross v. Global Associates
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2000-01-10 · cited 5×
The case involved an employee who sued his employer, a contractor performing maintenance work at a military base under a federal contract, claiming he was entitled to additional wages under the Davis-Bacon Act rather than the Service Contract Act based on a Department of Labor investigation. The plaintiff sought damages for unpaid wages that the DOL had allegedly determined were due. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The core reasoning was that the Davis-Bacon Act does not create a private right of action allowing individual employees to sue contractors directly for alleged wage violations.
labor & employment
Bragalone v. Kona Coast Resort Joint Venture
District Court, D. Hawaii · 1994-09-29 · cited 6×
This case involves plaintiff Stephanie Bragalone's claims against her employer Shell and related entities after she was not selected for the executive housekeeper position at a Hawaii resort in 1991, which went to a younger employee. Bragalone alleged age discrimination under federal and state law, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, stemming from her employment as assistant executive housekeeper and interactions with resort management. The court denied summary judgment on the age discrimination and retaliation claims against the primary defendants, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding pretext and discriminatory animus, but granted summary judgment to the Joint Venture on all claims and dismissed the emotional distress claim. It also granted the motion to toll backpay as of February 1992 and denied the motion to strike as moot. The rulings were based on application of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and analysis of the evidence presented in the affidavits and depositions.
labor & employmentcivil rights
Kersting v. United States
District Court, D. Hawaii · 1994-07-08 · cited 21×
This case involves plaintiffs Henry Kersting and associated corporations seeking reconsideration of prior court orders in a tax dispute with the United States, specifically challenging the denial of motions to disclose alleged government invasion of attorney-client privilege through an IRS informant (Luis DeCastro), to exclude evidence from a 1981 search warrant and grand jury materials used for civil purposes, to strike certain affidavits, and to compel witness appearances. The court denied all motions for reconsideration and related requests. It reasoned that plaintiffs had long known of the relevant issues without acting diligently, that DeCastro's statements were consistent and not fraudulent, that no new evidence or manifest legal error justified reconsideration under applicable standards, and that the court lacked jurisdiction or basis to compel further testimony or issue orders to show cause against the government.
taxesprocedure
Sunn v. City & County of Honolulu
District Court, D. Hawaii · 1994-05-19 · cited 7×
In Sunn v. City & County of Honolulu, a street musician who performed for tips on public sidewalks in Waikiki was arrested nine times under a city ordinance banning the sale or offer for sale of services in that area; he was acquitted in each case because courts found the ordinance inapplicable to his conduct. After the individual officers received qualified immunity on the plaintiff's federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the City moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be liable and that probable cause existed for the arrests. The district court denied the motion, holding that a reasonable factfinder could conclude the City maintained a policy or custom of disregarding state court interpretations of the ordinance, which could amount to deliberate indifference in supervision or training. The court noted that repeated enforcement despite acquittals raised triable issues of municipal liability under § 1983.
civil rightscriminal law
Baria v. Leno
District Court, D. Hawaii · 1994-04-29 · cited 3×
This case concerns Rodolfo Monroy Baria, a native of the Philippines, who obtained lawful permanent resident status through a marriage to a U.S. citizen that the Immigration and Naturalization Service later determined was a sham entered solely to gain immigration benefits. The district court reclassified and granted the government's motion to consider the administrative record as one for summary judgment, after Baria filed an untimely response. The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to rescind Baria's adjustment of status under section 246 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The ruling rested on the finding that the BIA's determination of fraud was supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence, including the sequence of Baria's divorce, remarriage, and separation, along with testimony and documentary evidence from his second wife.
immigration
Allstate Insurance v. Wolcott
District Court, D. Hawaii · 1994-03-23 · cited 3×
This case concerns a dispute over underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under an Allstate auto insurance policy issued to the defendant's mother. The defendant, injured as a passenger in a 1986 single-car accident, settled his tort claim against the driver and later sought UIM coverage from Allstate in 1992, after the last no-fault payment in 1988. The court was asked to determine the applicable statute of limitations for the UIM claim. It held that the two-year limitations period under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 294-36 governs UIM claims as additional no-fault coverage, rather than the six-year contract statute, and that the period began running from the date of the last no-fault payment. Because the claim was filed more than two years after that date, the court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's motion.
proceduretorts & liability