In Davis v. Four Seasons Hotel Ltd., food and beverage servers sued the hotel management company in a class action alleging that Four Seasons violated Hawaii wage statutes by retaining a portion of service charges added to customer food and beverage bills without disclosing this to customers. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Count 5, holding Four Seasons liable for unpaid wages under H.R.S. §§ 388-6, 10, 11, while leaving the amount of damages for trial. The core reasoning was that undisputed facts showed the defendant retained 18-22% service charges without clear disclosure to at least some customers, making those amounts wages owed to employees, and no statutory exceptions applied. The ruling followed procedural steps including a Hawaii Supreme Court decision on standing for related claims and dismissal of other counts.
The case involved a plaintiff who alleged that Honolulu police officers used excessive force by tasering, punching, and kicking him without provocation after being called to remove him from a bank, leading to his arrest on charges that were later dismissed due to his mental status; the plaintiff brought federal civil rights claims under the Constitution and related state tort claims against the officers and the City and County of Honolulu. The court ruled on the City's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), granting it in part and denying it in part with leave to amend certain claims. It dismissed claims against the City for conspiracy, equal protection violations, ADA violations, and negligent supervision/hiring, finding the allegations insufficient under Twombly and Iqbal pleading standards, but allowed claims for Fourth Amendment violations involving arrest without probable cause and excessive force, respondeat superior liability for false arrest and negligent tasing, and assault and battery to proceed as plausibly stated. The core reasoning centered on evaluating whether the complaint's factual allegations met the plausibility threshold for each cause of action while applying respondeat superior principles for municipal liability on surviving claims.
The case involved Young Choi Inc., owner of King’s Market & Liquor, seeking judicial review of a U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service decision permanently disqualifying the store from the Food Stamp Program for trafficking in food stamps based on electronic benefit transfer transaction data from March through August 2007. The United States moved for summary judgment affirming the agency action. The court granted the motion, affirmed the final agency decision, and dismissed the case, finding that the administrative record established multiple trafficking violations that triggered mandatory permanent disqualification under the applicable statutes and regulations. The court further determined that the sanction was not arbitrary or capricious, and noted that the plaintiff had not requested a civil monetary penalty in lieu of disqualification.
The case concerned Robert Konop's appeal of a bankruptcy court order that sustained Hawaiian Airlines' objection to Claim Number 72, which sought damages for alleged unauthorized access to Konop's website while he was employed as a pilot. The district court denied the appeal and affirmed the bankruptcy court's award of $9,000 in minimum statutory damages under the Stored Communications Act, offset by prior sanctions. The court found no clear error in the bankruptcy court's factual determinations regarding the number of unauthorized accesses and held that the lower court had correctly applied the statutory minimum damages provision without requiring proof of actual damages.
The case involved defendant Noshir S. Gowadia's motions to suppress statements made to government agents during three border inspections at Honolulu International Airport in 2003 and 2004, as well as evidence seized from a shipped container and during those inspections. The defendant argued that the statements should be suppressed due to lack of Miranda warnings because he was in custody, and that the seizures violated the Fourth Amendment. The court denied both motions, holding that the airport questioning occurred during routine border inspections that were not custodial interrogations, lasted briefly without restraint or coercion, and required no Miranda warnings absent probable cause; the container search was a valid border examination of incoming goods. The core reasoning focused on the reduced constitutional protections at borders, the non-custodial nature of the encounters, and the agents' authority to inspect for customs and security purposes.
The case involved petitioner Oliver Kupau, who sought an exemption under 29 U.S.C. § 504 from disqualification from holding a union office after his 2002 federal conviction for money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956. The conviction arose from his use of proceeds from an illegal cockfighting operation to bribe a police officer. Kupau moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that his conviction did not trigger the statutory bar to union employment. The court denied the motion, holding that the laundering offense, which was committed with intent to promote the underlying unlawful activity of bribery, fell squarely within the categories of disqualifying crimes listed in § 504(a). The ruling was based on the plain text of the statute and its explicit inclusion of violations of § 1956 that involve bribery.
