Alan Cooke Kay

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involves food and beverage servers at the Grand Wailea Resort who sued the hotel's owners and operators, alleging that the defendants added service charges to customer bills but retained a portion for themselves or used it for non-tipped employees without disclosing this to customers. Plaintiffs asserted claims under Hawaii statutes for unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices (H.R.S. §§ 481B-14, 480-2), intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of wage payment laws (H.R.S. §§ 388-6, 388-10, 388-11). The court considered defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. It granted the motion in part by dismissing Count I entirely, reasoning that plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing a negative effect on competition as required by the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Four Seasons Hotel Ltd., and it denied the motion in part as to the remaining counts.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Painsolvers, Inc., a provider of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits in Hawaii, suing State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for unpaid PIP claims as well as trade libel, disparagement, and slander arising from State Farm's handling of those claims. The court denied Painsolvers' motion for summary judgment, denied its motion for leave to file a supplemental declaration, and granted State Farm's counter-motion for summary judgment on the defamation claims. The court determined certain facts were not in dispute under Rule 56(d) and found that Painsolvers had not shown good cause for the late filing or met its evidentiary burden to support summary judgment or further discovery on the claims. The decision rested on the plaintiff's failure to produce timely, specific evidence of the alleged defamatory statements or unpaid benefits in the record before the court.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a pro se plaintiff who sued NCsoft Corporation and its affiliate after being banned from the online game Lineage II, alleging psychological addiction from prolonged play without warnings, an unfair ban to promote a new game called Aion, retention of prepaid account fees, and related emotional distress and defamation. The court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), as well as issues of subject matter jurisdiction and choice of law. It granted the motion in part by dismissing certain claims like intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation for failure to state a claim, while denying it in part with respect to other claims such as those involving gross negligence or intentional conduct that could not be waived under the user agreement. The core reasoning centered on Hawaii law regarding the enforceability of contractual waivers, which shield against ordinary negligence but not gross negligence, intentional torts, or reckless acts, along with pleading standards for fraud.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiffs Maria Lovell and Kimberly Sullivan, former part-time United Airlines employees with disabilities in Hawaii, who sued United and two supervisors alleging that a 2003 policy requiring employees to work at least 30 hours per week violated Hawaii anti-discrimination statutes and public policy by failing to accommodate their disabilities. After removal to federal court on diversity and CAFA grounds, the district court affirmed the magistrate judge's order staying the Hawaii proceedings pending resolution of an earlier-filed EEOC class action in the Western District of Washington asserting parallel claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act against the same policy. The core reasoning centered on the Seattle action's earlier filing date, substantial overlap in parties, facts, and legal issues regarding reasonable accommodations, and the need to promote judicial efficiency while avoiding duplicative litigation and inconsistent outcomes. The court also noted that the EEOC action could provide broader relief encompassing the plaintiffs' claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a former flight attendant who sued her union, the Association of Flight Attendants, and its staff attorney in state court, alleging the union failed to address two character-damaging letters in her personnel file and improperly declined to take her termination grievance to arbitration, possibly due to race, gender, or age discrimination, in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. The union removed the case to federal court, and the plaintiff moved to remand while the defendant moved to dismiss. The court denied the motion for remand, finding federal question jurisdiction because the claims implicated the union's federal duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act, which preempts related state-law claims. It granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, concluding that any independent breach-of-duty claim was time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved Ismail Shahata, who was hired as executive chef for W Steak Waikiki at a $60,000 salary with moving and housing benefits, suing his employer after being removed from the position shortly after the restaurant's opening; he asserted claims for promissory estoppel, infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, wrongful discharge, and breach of contract. After procedural disputes including the plaintiff's pro se status, denied continuance requests, and an improper interlocutory appeal, the court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the merits. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, concluding that some claims failed as a matter of law due to insufficient evidence, the existence of an enforceable contract precluding promissory estoppel, and limits on tort recovery arising from contractual employment relationships. It evaluated declarations, deposition excerpts, and legal standards without resolving factual disputes where genuine issues remained.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns aged, blind, and disabled Medicaid beneficiaries and providers in Hawaii challenging the state's QExA managed care program, which requires enrollment with one of two contractors (Evercare or Ohana) and alleges violations of the Medicaid Act including inadequate provider networks, insufficient solvency assurances, and related federal requirements. The court addressed Evercare's motion for partial summary judgment on the specific claims that the QExA provider networks are inadequate. It granted the motion in part and denied it in part, determining that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding compliance with state solvency standards and protections for non-participating providers in insolvency scenarios, while resolving other aspects of the network adequacy challenges.

healthcarefederal power

This case involves Tracy N., suing the Hawaii Department of Education on behalf of her son under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), alleging that the DOE failed to provide the student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) through adequate individualized education programs (IEPs) and related services. After an administrative hearing officer ruled that the student had received FAPE and denied reimbursement for the parent's unilateral private school placement, the parent appealed to federal court. The court affirmed the hearing officer's decision, finding that the DOE's IEPs, evaluations, and placements complied with IDEA requirements and enabled the student to make educational progress in academics and behavior. The core reasoning relied on the administrative record, including progress reports, evaluations, and testimony showing appropriate goals, services, and least restrictive environment considerations.

civil rights

This case involves the U.S. Secretary of Labor petitioning to enforce two administrative subpoenas duces tecum issued by the Office of Labor-Management Standards against the Laborers International Union of North America, Local 368, seeking documents related to a 2009 supervised union officer election conducted under a 2008 settlement agreement following an earlier contested election and investigation into candidate eligibility. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, affirmed the denial of the union's motion to quash the subpoenas, and affirmed the partial grant of a protective order, thereby requiring compliance with the subpoenas. The court reasoned that the subpoenas were properly issued under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act to investigate potential election violations, that the requested information was relevant and necessary, and that any privacy concerns could be addressed through a sequential production approach without invalidating the subpoenas. The ruling applied de novo review to the dispositive aspects while confirming the subpoenas' enforceability.

labor & employmentelectionsfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a wrongful death claim brought by Tarshia Williams against the United States after her minor daughter Talia died in 2005 while living on a Hawaii military base, allegedly due to abuse by her father and stepmother. The plaintiffs alleged negligence by federal employees, including child care workers, social workers, and others, for failing to properly report, investigate, or act on signs of abuse under Hawaii law and Army regulations. The court granted in part and denied in part the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that Hawaii's child abuse reporting statute does not create an independent duty supporting a private negligence action, but that the government could face liability under the good Samaritan doctrine for duties it voluntarily assumed. The court found material factual disputes regarding certain incidents, such as a social worker's investigation, precluding full summary judgment, while rejecting claims based solely on statutory violations or specific non-breaches.

torts & liabilityfamily lawfederal power

This case concerns a motion in limine filed by Evercare in G. v. Hawaii, Dept. of Human Services to exclude the expert testimony and reports of Dr. Arleen D. Meyers regarding the adequacy of provider networks in Hawaii's QUEST Expanded Access (QExA) managed care program for aged, blind, and disabled beneficiaries. The court granted the motion, ruling that Dr. Meyers' Preliminary and Final Reports, which relied on a telephone survey of listed providers, were inadmissible. The core reasoning was that the survey methodology failed to adhere to generally accepted principles for reliable sampling and data collection, including issues with non-random selection, potential bias in the surveyor, lack of proper validation, and assumptions not supported by competent evidence. The decision also addressed related joinders and the admissibility of supporting statistical analysis by Professor Doumas.

healthcareprocedure

This case involves a Hawaii medical provider, Painsolvers, Inc., suing State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for unpaid personal injury protection (PIP) benefits on over twelve claims submitted using standard CMS-1500 forms, along with related claims for trade libel, disparagement, and slander. The court addressed State Farm's motion to dismiss counts one through six and count nine of the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim, as well as Painsolvers' cross-motion seeking summary judgment, adjudication, or a preliminary injunction. The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion in full after reviewing the allegations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standards, considering whether the claims sufficiently alleged violations of Hawaii insurance statutes like HRS § 431:10C-304, and finding that certain evidence and arguments did not meet the required burdens or were procedurally improper. Core reasoning focused on the sufficiency of the pleadings, the plain language of PIP payment obligations limited by policy limits, and the absence of evidence showing exhaustion of benefits or other defenses at this stage.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

This case concerns Medicaid beneficiaries in Hawaii's aged, blind, and disabled population, along with certain healthcare providers, who challenged the state's QUEST Expanded Access (QExA) managed care program. The program requires enrollment with one of two specific contractors as a condition of receiving benefits, and plaintiffs alleged violations of the Medicaid Act, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and other federal provisions, including claims about contractor solvency, provider networks, and licensure requirements. The court granted in part and denied in part the state defendants' motions for summary judgment on counts VI through IX, granted summary judgment to the defendants on the license question, and denied the plaintiffs' motion regarding licensure and solvency. The core reasoning involved interpretations of state insurance licensing statutes, federal waiver approvals under the Medicaid Act, and assessments of whether the contractors met solvency and network adequacy standards under the applicable regulations.

healthcarecivil rightsfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved Medicaid beneficiaries and providers challenging the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) approval of Hawaii's QUEST Expanded Access managed care program for aged, blind, and disabled beneficiaries, including a waiver of the freedom-of-choice provision under the Medicaid Act, approval of contracts with two specific insurers, and reimbursement of a state premium tax. The plaintiffs argued that these actions were arbitrary and capricious and violated federal law. The court granted summary judgment to the federal defendants and denied the plaintiffs' motions, concluding that the CMS approvals complied with statutory requirements and that the premium tax reimbursement did not infringe on federal tax immunity or other legal standards.

healthcarefederal powertaxes