District Court, D. Hawaii — appointed by Ronald Reagan
D.R. Ex Rel. Etsuko R. v. Department of Education
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2011-10-21 · cited 1×
The case involved a parent challenging an individualized education program (IEP) developed in June 2010 for her child, who is eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), after the parent had unilaterally placed the student in private schools. An administrative hearings officer ruled in favor of the Hawaii Department of Education, finding the IEP sufficient. The federal district court reviewed the administrative record and affirmed the decision, concluding that the Department had complied with IDEA procedures and that the IEP was reasonably calculated to provide the student with educational benefits, including addressing behavioral needs through supports like one-on-one assistance. The court gave due weight to the administrative findings, rejected claims of bias and procedural or substantive deficiencies in the IEP, and determined that the offered program constituted a free appropriate public education under the statute.
civil rightsfederal powerprocedure
Sm v. Hawai'i Dept. of Educ.
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2011-04-20 · cited 4×
This case involved parents of a six-year-old student with autism challenging the Hawaii Department of Education's February 2010 individualized education program (IEP) as insufficient under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), compared to a later March IEP, after they moved from New Jersey. The administrative hearings officer had dismissed the claims, finding the February IEP offered a free appropriate public education. The district court affirmed that decision after reviewing the record. It gave significant deference to the thorough administrative findings, concluded that the IEP complied with IDEA's procedural requirements, and determined it was reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits under the standards from Board of Education v. Rowley.
civil rightsprocedure
Weight v. USAA Casualty Insurance
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2011-03-22 · cited 6×
The case concerns LeslieAina Weight's request for a declaratory judgment that her USAA homeowners insurance policy obligates the insurer to defend and indemnify her in an underlying state-court lawsuit brought by neighboring landowners, who allege that her maintenance of a stream diversion since 1990 has caused them property damage by depriving their land of natural water flow for ponds, irrigation, and aesthetics. USAA denied coverage, asserting that the claims did not involve an "occurrence" (defined as an accident) and were excluded as intentional acts. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court analyzed the policy language, the nature of the underlying tort claims for property damage, and Hawaii precedent on intended-versus-unintended harm, ultimately granting in part and denying in part the motions while continuing portions for further proceedings after finding triable issues on whether any resulting damage was accidental and potentially covered. The court also addressed whether state water-resource commission jurisdiction over the underlying claims precluded insurance coverage.
propertyproceduretorts & liability
Metzler Contracting Co. LLC v. Stephens
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2011-02-28 · cited 5×
This case arose from a construction contract dispute in which Metzler Contracting built a home for the Stephenses on Hawaii's Big Island, leading to arbitration over claims including alleged overbilling of about $7 million, non-reimbursable costs, project delays, various construction defects, and Metzler's claim for unpaid amounts. The arbitrator awarded roughly $800,000 to the Stephenses on their claims and about $646,000 plus fees to Metzler, resulting in a net award of $47,509 to the Stephenses. Metzler moved to confirm the award under state law while the Stephenses petitioned to vacate it under the Federal Arbitration Act; the court applied federal law due to a strong presumption favoring the FAA absent clear contrary intent in the contract, reviewed the arbitrator's decisions for plausibility on issues such as waiver of written change-order requirements, and granted in part and denied in part confirmation while denying vacatur.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
G. Ex Rel. K. v. Hawaii
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2011-01-21 · cited 1×
This case concerned whether Hawaii's transition of aged, blind, and disabled Medicaid beneficiaries from a fee-for-service model to the QUEST Expanded Access managed care program complied with federal Medicaid requirements. Plaintiffs alleged that the two contracted managed care organizations delayed or denied covered services and imposed unjustified burdens, violating 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(m)(1)(A)(i) and related provisions enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Supremacy Clause. After an eleven-day bench trial, the court ruled for the defendants on all remaining counts, holding that the managed care organizations made services accessible to the same extent as services available to beneficiaries under the state's QUEST program and therefore satisfied the statutory standard. The court denied injunctive relief, finding no violation of federal law.
healthcarefederal powercivil rights
Burlington Insurance Company v. Panacorp, Inc.
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2010-12-23 · cited 10×
This consolidated federal declaratory judgment action arose after an industrial explosion at a Hawaii recycling plant, in which Burlington Insurance Company sought rulings that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Panacorp, PSC, Rehmer, or Norva under a commercial general liability policy issued to an individual, because the underlying contracts and claims involved a different entity. Multiple related personal injury and property damage suits were pending in state court, where PSC and others had asserted third-party claims against Burlington for coverage. The court granted motions by Rehmer and PSC to stay the federal proceedings and denied Norva's motion to dismiss, reasoning that the parallel state actions created discretionary grounds under the Declaratory Judgment Act to abstain or stay in order to avoid duplicative litigation, promote comity, and allow state courts to resolve the core coverage issues first.
procedurebusiness & regulatory