District Court, D. Hawaii — appointed by Richard Nixon
Kaahumanu v. Hawaii
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2010-02-16 · cited 1×
In Kaahumanu v. Hawaii, plaintiffs including a pastor and a wedding professionals association challenged Hawaii DLNR regulations requiring permits for commercial activities on unencumbered state lands, specifically targeting fee-based weddings on public beaches as violating the First Amendment. The court denied plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and granted defendants', ruling the regulations constitutional as applied and not overbroad. The decision rested on findings that the beaches are not traditional public forums for this purpose, the permit scheme qualifies as reasonable content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions that are narrowly tailored to significant government interests while leaving open ample alternative channels for expression. The court also dismissed a related breach-of-settlement claim for lack of jurisdiction and because subsequent valid regulations did not violate the prior agreement.
free speechbusiness & regulatory
Watanabe v. Lankford
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2010-01-15 · cited 14×
This case arose from a 2007 incident in which Masumi Watanabe was fatally injured by a Terminix vehicle driven by employee Kirk Lankford; her estate and family sued Lankford and Terminix in Hawaii state court alleging negligence, respondeat superior liability, and gross negligence warranting punitive damages. Terminix removed the action to federal district court under diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the plaintiffs were Japanese citizens, Terminix was a Delaware/Tennessee entity, the amount in controversy exceeded $150,000, and Lankford had not been served. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing improper removal and timeliness issues. The magistrate judge recommended denial, finding complete diversity, satisfaction of the amount-in-controversy requirement, and timely removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because the 30-day clock began only upon formal service, not mere receipt of a courtesy copy. The district judge adopted the findings and recommendation in full, denying the motion for remand.
proceduretorts & liability
Alston v. Read
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2010-01-14 · cited 2×
This case concerns a former Hawaii state prisoner who sued two Department of Public Safety employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after being held in custody for approximately 145 days beyond the end of his sentence due to an alleged miscalculation of his release date. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the state constitutional claim because no private right of action exists under § 1983 and dismissing the negligence claim because § 1983 does not remedy negligence and the Eleventh Amendment bars damages against the state. The court denied the motion as to the federal claims, holding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding violations of the Fourteenth Amendment due process right to liberty and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference, and that qualified immunity cannot be granted at this stage because disputed historical facts prevent a determination of objective reasonableness.
civil rightscriminal lawprocedure
Blake C. Ex Rel. Tina F. v. Department of Education
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2009-01-15 · cited 2×
This case involves judicial review under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of an administrative hearings officer's September 2007 decision finding that the Hawaii Department of Education's December 2006 Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for Blake C., a child with autism, provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the second half of the 2006-07 school year. The U.S. District Court reversed the hearings officer's ruling after examining the full procedural history, including prior findings of IDEA violations for earlier school years and an award of compensatory education, and determined that the IEP was deficient. The court awarded the plaintiff tuition reimbursement for private placement at the Pacific Autism Center from January through June 2007. The core reasoning centered on the inadequacy of the December 2006 IEP based on evidence of the student's needs and progress at the time it was developed.
civil rightsprocedure
Amonette v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B.
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2007-09-12 · cited 10×
The case involved plaintiff Beth Amonette, who obtained a personal refinancing loan secured by her primary residence and later sought to rescind it under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) due to allegedly inadequate or misleading disclosures by IndyMac Bank. IndyMac moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that Amonette lacked standing because the property was held in her revocable living trust, which TILA exempts as an 'organization.' The court denied the motion, holding that Amonette had standing to pursue her TILA claims. The core reasoning was that TILA's exemption for organizations does not apply here, as the loan was for personal consumer purposes, Amonette retained full control over the revocable trust, and the lender's own disclosures treated her as an individual borrower rather than the trust itself.
business & regulatoryproperty
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. NCL America Inc.
District Court, D. Hawaii · 2007-08-31 · cited 16×
This case involves an employment discrimination action brought by the EEOC and seven intervenors against NCL America Inc., alleging that employees of Yemeni or Middle Eastern descent who were Muslim were unlawfully terminated based on national origin and religion in violation of Title VII and the Hawaii equivalent under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-2. The court denied the defendants' motion to partially dismiss the state-law claims of four intervenors whose administrative complaints were filed after the 180-day deadline under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-11(c). The decision permitted those four to proceed by piggybacking on the timely filings of three other intervenors under the single-filing rule, because all seven made essentially identical claims arising from the same circumstances and time frame that were investigated together by the EEOC as a class. The court reasoned that the established federal exception to individual exhaustion requirements applies equally to the parallel state-law claims given the shared factual basis.
labor & employmentcivil rights