Helen W. Gillmor

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.

labor & employment

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.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

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.

business & regulatory

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcriminal law

Two private individuals sued several U.S. federal agencies and CERN to enjoin operation of the Large Hadron Collider, claiming that its activation could destroy the Earth and that the agencies had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to perform required environmental reviews before contributing funds to the project. The court granted the federal defendants' motion to dismiss the action. The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the agencies' involvement did not qualify as a 'major Federal action' under NEPA. The court further noted that plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish jurisdiction and that NEPA does not provide a forum for resolving scientific policy disagreements.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a federal prisoner, Jay Abregana, who challenged the government's attempt to civilly commit him as a sexually dangerous person under 18 U.S.C. § 4248 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act after he completed his criminal sentence. Abregana filed multiple motions arguing that Congress lacked authority to enact the statute, that it violated the Ex Post Facto, Double Jeopardy, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and vagueness clauses of the Constitution, and that various procedural protections like a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard or full Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights should apply. The court denied all motions, holding that the commitment provisions were a valid exercise of Congress's powers, did not impose punishment, and satisfied constitutional requirements through the use of a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and the procedural safeguards in 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d).

criminal lawfederal powercivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Hawaii Forest & Trail, Ltd., a Hawaii-based eco-tourism company, seeking damages from allegedly defective custom vehicles purchased for use in its business, with claims against Klam America for installing faulty retarders in those vehicles. Klam America, based in Colorado, moved to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, determining that Klam had purposefully availed itself of the forum by installing the retarders in vehicles it knew were destined for Hawaii, and that the exercise of specific jurisdiction was reasonable based on the balance of relevant factors including the state's interest and the plaintiff's convenience.

proceduretorts & liability

In Phillips v. Murdock, plaintiff Cherie Phillips, author of books on stoic philosophy and religion such as the Wisdom Bible of God, sued defendant Mike Murdock for copyright infringement, alleging that his books The Wisdom Bible and The Minister’s Topical Handbook copied from her copyrighted works. The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Count IV of the complaint without prejudice. The court reasoned that copyright law protects only the specific expression of ideas and not general ideas, themes, or concepts such as philosophy and religion, and that the complaint failed to identify any substantially similar original text that was copied, violating the pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).

propertyprocedure

In Young v. Hawaii, plaintiff George K. Young Jr. sued state and county officials after his applications for a permit to carry a firearm were denied under Hawaii Revised Statutes §§ 134-6 and 134-9, claiming the statutes violated his rights under the Second, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments as well as Article I of the Constitution. The court dismissed the claims against the State of Hawaii, its governor, and attorney general on sovereign immunity grounds and dismissed duplicative claims against individual county officials. Claims against the county and police department were dismissed because the court found no individual fundamental right to bear arms and determined that the statutes were rationally related to the legitimate government interest in public safety. The case was decided on motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

gunscivil rights

The case involved the United States seeking to reduce federal income tax assessments, penalties, and interest against Richard and Katherine Cowan to judgment and to foreclose on real property titled in the name of Freebird Ventures, which the government alleged held the property as the Cowans' nominee. The Cowans opposed the government's motion and sought summary judgment in their favor along with a stay of any foreclosure order. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment, denied the Cowans' motions, established the nominee relationship, and ordered foreclosure and judicial sale of the property, while allowing the Cowans an opportunity to post a supersedeas bond to stay execution pending appeal. The decision rested on the validity of the tax assessments, the Cowans' failure to raise triable issues of fact, and established precedent confirming federal authority to impose income taxes on U.S. citizens and to enforce liens against nominee-held property.

taxesproperty

The case concerns pro se prisoner plaintiff Lael Samonte's motion to require prison officials to deduct filing fees from his trust account sequentially rather than simultaneously across multiple pending civil rights actions, so that he could retain funds for commissary purchases. The court denied the motion, holding that the Hawaii Department of Public Safety's practice of simultaneous withdrawals complies with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), after an initial partial fee, prisoners must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income for each outstanding filing fee, with payments forwarded whenever the account exceeds $10. The court found that this simultaneous collection method is consistent with the statute's text and purpose of ensuring full payment of fees while leaving a minimum balance intact.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. brought an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against Mesa Air Group, Inc., alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement entered during Hawaiian's Chapter 11 reorganization and seeking return of confidential information under 11 U.S.C. § 542(a). Mesa filed counterclaims asserting that Hawaiian maintained an unlawful monopoly in the inter-island air transportation market and that the lawsuit was a sham intended to block Mesa's competition, in violation of antitrust laws and state unfair competition statutes. Mesa moved to withdraw the reference of the proceeding to the district court, citing the presence of non-core claims and its jury trial demand. The district court denied the motion, holding that the bankruptcy court was already familiar with the relevant facts and issues from the reorganization, that judicial economy favored allowing the bankruptcy court to handle pretrial matters, and that withdrawal could be sought later if the case proceeded to trial.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a property owner in Hawaii's conservation district Limited subzone who challenged a state land use regulation, H.A.R. § 13-5-23(L-6), on equal protection grounds under the Fourteenth Amendment. The regulation permits single-family residences in floodplains and coastal high hazard areas within the subzone but prohibits them in other hazardous areas such as those prone to volcanic activity, landslides, or steep slopes. The plaintiff sought summary judgment and to sever the regulation to expand permitted uses, while defendants cross-moved for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, granted the defendants' cross-motion, and dismissed the action, holding that the regulation is rationally related to the state's legitimate interests in preserving fragile ecosystems and limiting development where natural conditions constrain human activities.

environmentpropertycivil rights

In United States v. Troiano, defendant James Troiano moved to sever his trial from co-defendant Wendell Toki in a case charging both with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, Hobbs Act robbery, use of a firearm during the robbery, and felon in possession of a firearm related to a 2005 liquor store robbery in Hawaii. The court granted the motion for severance. The decision was based on concerns that introducing Toki's statement to police through a government agent's testimony could violate Troiano's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, especially considering anticipated cross-examination, and that the defendants' defenses were mutually antagonistic, with Toki claiming Troiano manipulated him into providing information about the store while Troiano denied involvement in the robbery. This created a risk that a joint trial would compromise the defendants' rights to a fair trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14.

criminal lawprocedure

Plaintiff Paul Lucas, a solar water heater installer, sued Citizens Communications Company and Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, alleging that their rebate program for solar water heaters—which set maximum prices for approved contractors and required participation agreements—violated federal and state antitrust laws through price-fixing and monopolization, and also asserted a defamation claim. The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. On the antitrust claims, the court found no evidence of concerted action or conspiracy meeting the requirements under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, applied the rule of reason rather than per se illegality to the maximum price restrictions, and noted the program was part of a Public Utilities Commission-approved demand-side management initiative with no anticompetitive effects shown; the defamation claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. The court concluded the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Maloon v. Schwartz, Zweban & Slingbaum, L.L.P., a Hawaii resident sued a Florida debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging that a collection letter sent to her in Hawaii violated the statute. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer venue. The court denied the motion, concluding that specific personal jurisdiction existed because the defendant purposefully directed its activities at Hawaii by mailing the letter there, the claim arose from that contact, and jurisdiction was reasonable under due process. Venue was also held proper in Hawaii under the FDCPA provision allowing suit where the plaintiff resides and because the claim arose in the district where the offending letter was received.

procedure

The case concerned whether a federal district court had jurisdiction over Defendant Lei Shi, a Chinese national charged with seizing and exercising control over a covered ship in international waters by force, including killing the captain and first mate, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2280. The court determined that it possessed jurisdiction based on the statute, which implements the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation ratified by the United States. The core reasoning was that the Convention and the implementing legislation explicitly provide for jurisdiction over such acts of violence against maritime navigation on covered ships, regardless of the nationalities involved or the location in international waters, as the vessel was navigating beyond territorial seas.

criminal lawfederal power

The case concerned whether coverage existed under a directors and officers liability insurance policy issued by Twin City Fire Insurance Company for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee against Unified Western Grocers and its officers and subsidiaries in an underlying adversary proceeding. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the policy applied to losses from the trustee lawsuit under the company reimbursement provisions, while the insurer contended that exclusions and lack of entity coverage barred recovery. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion, holding that the policy did not afford coverage. The core reasoning was that the policy's insured-versus-insured exclusion applied because the trustee's claims were brought by or on behalf of an insured entity, and the policy expressly excluded coverage for the corporate entities' own wrongful acts.

business & regulatory