Davis et al v. Four Seasons Hotel Limited
Filing
200
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT FOUR SEASONS HOTEL LIMITED'S 194 APPEAL OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES DENIAL OF ITS RENEWED MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. Related docs: 177 , 182 . 190 , 191 . Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 2/14/2012. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
DARYL DEAN DAVIS; MARK
APANA; ELIZABETH VALDEZ
KYNE; EARL TANAKA; THOMAS
PERRYMAN; DEBORAH SCARFONE;
on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FOUR SEASONS HOTEL LIMITED,
dba FOUR SEASONS RESORT,
MAUI and FOUR SEASONS
RESORT, HUALALAI; MSD
CAPITAL, INC.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 08-00525 HG-BMK
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT FOUR SEASONS HOTEL LIMITED’S APPEAL
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DENIAL OF ITS RENEWED MOTION FOR
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS (DOC. 194)
On September 15, 2011, Defendant Four Seasons Hotel,
Limited (“Four Seasons” or “Defendant”) filed a Motion for a
Stay of Proceedings. (Doc. 177).
On October 20, 2011, the
Court denied the Motion. (Doc. 182).
On December 13, 2011,
Four Seasons filed a Renewed Motion for Stay of Proceedings,
which was referred to Magistrate Judge Kurren. (Doc. 190).
On January 1, 2012, Judge Kurren denied the Renewed Motion
for the same reasons set forth in the Court’s Order denying
1
the original Motion to Stay. (Doc. 191).
On January 17,
2012, Four Seasons filed an Appeal of Judge Kurren’s ruling.
The Appeal (Doc. 194) is DENIED.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On
September
8,
2011,
in
Villon
v.
Marriot
Hotel
Services, Inc., CV 08-00529-LEK-RLP, Doc. 125 (Sep. 8, 2011),
and Rodriguez v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., CV
09-00016-LEK-RLP, Doc. 134 (Sep. 8, 2011), Judge Kobayashi
issued orders indicating that she would certify questions to
the Hawaii Supreme Court that Defendant here believes bear on
Plaintiffs’ claims before this Court.
On September 15, 2011, Defendant Four Seasons Hotel,
Limited filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings pending the Hawaii
Supreme Court’s answer to the certified questions. (Doc. 177).
On October 12, 2011, Judge Kobayashi certified the three
questions to the Hawaii Supreme Court. Villon v. Marriot Hotel
Services, Inc., CV 08-00529-LEK-RLP, Doc. 130 (Oct. 12, 2011);
Rodriguez v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., CV 0900016-LEK-RLP (October 12, 2011).
On October 20, 2011, the Court issued an Order denying
Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings. (Doc. 182).
2
On December 13, 2011, Defendant filed a Renewed Motion
for Stay of Proceedings pending the Hawaii Supreme Court’s
answer to the certified questions. (Doc. 190).
On January 1, 2012, Magistrate Judge Kurren issued an
Order denying the Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Stay. (Doc.
191).
On
January
17,
2012,
Defendant
filed
an
Appeal
of
Magistrate Judge Kurren’s denial of its Renewed Motion to
Stay. (Doc. 194).
On January 31, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Response in
opposition. (Doc. 197).
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the Court elected to
decide the Appeal without a hearing.
STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule
74.1 allow a party to appeal a magistrate judge’s decision
within 14 days.
In considering the appeal, the district
judge must “set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s
order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
LRCiv 74.1.
The district judge may also “reconsider sua
sponte any matter determined” by the magistrate judge. Id.
3
The clearly erroneous standard is “significantly
deferential and is not met unless the reviewing court is
left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 1100
(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court for
Northern Dist. of Cal., 586 F.3d 703, 708 (9th Cir. 2009)).
ANALYSIS
Four Seasons argues that the Magistrate Judge’s denial
of its Renewed Motion to Stay is erroneous because the
denial relies on the same grounds previously given by the
Court when denying Four Seasons’ original Motion to Stay.
Such reliance is erroneous, Four Seasons argues, because the
Court’s grounds for denying the stay were rendered moot by
intervening circumstances.
Specifically, Four Seasons
argues that subsequent to the Court’s ruling on the original
Motion to Stay, the Hawaii Supreme Court has “dispelled any
doubt” that it will answer the certified question submitted
by Judge Kobayashi in Villon v. Marriot Hotel Serv. Inc.,
CV-08-00529 LEK-RLP.
Four Seasons fails to point to a clear error in the
Magistrate Judge’s ruling or to grounds for reconsideration
of the Court’s Order denying Four Seasons’ original Motion
4
to Stay.
Magistrate Judge Kurren’s ruling was a denial of a
motion for reconsideration.
A motion for reconsideration
“should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
unless the district court is presented with newly discovered
evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an
intervening change in controlling law.” Kona Enterprises,
Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
The Hawaii Supreme Court did not “dispel[] any doubt”
that it would answer the certified question.
Although the
Hawaii Supreme Court ordered the parties in Villon to brief
one of the certified questions, it expressly stated that it
was doing so “without conclusively determining whether this
court will answer [it].” (Order on Certified Question,
Villon v. Marriot Hotel Serv. Inc., CV-08-00529 LEK-RLP Doc.
135 (Nov. 9, 2011)).
In any event, a decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court to
answer the certified question does not warrant
reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying Four Seasons’
original Motion to Stay.
Deciding whether to impose a stay
is within the sound discretion of the district court.
Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir.
2005).
In denying Four Seasons’ original Motion to Stay,
5
the Court emphasized that a party seeking a stay must “make
out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required
to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the
stay for which he prays will work damage to some one else.”
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936).
“Only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be
compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles
the rule of law that will define the rights of both.” Id.
There is a fair possibility that the stay Four Seasons
seeks would work damage to the Plaintiffs.
If the Hawaii
Supreme Court answers the certified question in the
Plaintiffs’ favor, the stay will have needlessly delayed the
Plaintiffs’ resolution of their case.
This case is already
over three years old, and was previously stayed for over 10
months while the Hawaii Supreme Court answered a prior
certified question.
Delaying the Plaintiffs’ resolution of
their case for even longer could result in any number of
unforeseen events that would prejudice the Plaintiffs.
In
failing to consider the potential harm to the Plaintiffs
that a stay might cause, Four Seasons appears to assume that
the Hawaii Supreme Court’s answer to the certified question
will be in its favor.
As the party seeking a stay, Four Seasons has the
6
burden of showing that any potential harm to the Plaintiffs
is outweighed by a “clear case of hardship or inequity in
being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.
Four Seasons fails to do so.
Four Seasons essentially
argues that being required to go forward will be a hardship
because it will have to expend resources litigating a case
even though it may ultimately prevail.
Given that the
Hawaii Supreme Court may rule in favor of the Plaintiffs,
this is of course only a potential harm.
Under the
circumstances and equities present in this case, it does not
outweigh the potential harm that a stay could cause to the
Plaintiffs.
As the Court pointed out in its Order denying
Four Seasons’ original Motion to Stay, Four Seasons
previously opposed the Plaintiffs’ request to certify a
question to the Hawaii Supreme Court that is substantively
identical to the currently certified question.
It would be
inequitable to now impose a stay and potentially prejudice
the Plaintiff’s resolution of their case in order to avoid
potential harm to Four Seasons.
As Four Seasons has not identified a clear error in the
Magistrate Judge’s ruling or grounds for reconsideration of
the Court’s denial or its original Motion to Stay, Four
Seasons’ Appeal is DENIED.
7
CONCLUSION
Defendant
Four
Seasons
Hotel,
Ltd.’s
Appeal
of
the
Magistrate Judge’s Denial of Its Renewed Motion for Stay of
Proceedings (Doc. 194) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 14, 2012, Honolulu, Hawaii.
/S/ Helen Gillmor
Helen Gillmor
United States District Judge
DAVIS, et al. v. FOUR SEASONS HOTEL LIMITED, et al.; Civil No. 0800525 HG-BMK; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT FOUR SEASONS HOTEL
LIMITED’S APPEAL OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DENIAL OF ITS
RENEWED MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS (DOC. 194).
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?