Locricchio et al v. Continental Investment Company Ltd. et al

Filing 37

ORDER STAYING HEARING DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2011, AND DISCLOSING THE COURT'S PAST RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. LOCRICCHIO, Motions deemed withdrawn: 27 Ex Parte MOTION to Stay re 8 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint for FRCP 22 Inter pleader and FRCP 20 Permissive Joinder of Parties and Declaratory Relief ; 8 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint for FRCP 22 Interpleader and FRCP 20 Permissive Joinder of Parties and Declaratory Relief and re: 12 MOTION for Joinder re 8 M OTION to Dismiss Complaint for FRCP 22 Interpleader and FRCP 20 Permissive Joinder of Parties and Declaratory Relief. Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY on 8/12/11. (eps) -- in the event either party believes the Court should recuse itsel f from presiding over this case, such party should file a request for a recusal, including the grounds therefor, by next Wednesday, August 17, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive ele ctronic 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

ANTHONY P. LOCRICCHIO; JAMES
SLEMONS; JIM SLEMONS HAWAII,
INC.,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CONTINENTAL INVESTMENT COMPANY, )
LTD.; TONY HONDA AUTO; CAR
)
STEREO INC.; ARTHUR GOTO; RONALD )
FUJIKAWA, President of
)
Continental Investment Company, )
Ltd., JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES )
)
1-10; JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1)
10; JOHN DOE LIMITED
)
PARTNERSHIPS 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Civ. No. 10-00710 ACK-RLP

ORDER STAYING HEARING DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2011, AND DISCLOSING THE
COURT’S PAST RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. LOCRICCHIO
Defendants Continental Investment Company, Arthur Goto,
and Ronald Fujikawa have informed the Court that on September 22,
2011, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit will
be hearing several appeals whose resolution might resolve all of
the issues in the matter before this Court.
n.1.

Doc. No. 35 at 1

This September 22 hearing date, which the Court has

verified, alleviates concerns of a prolonged delay in waiting for
the BAP to issue a ruling.

In the interest of judicial economy,

the Court will therefore stay the hearing currently scheduled for

September 1, 2011, until after the BAP has ruled.

Accordingly,

the motion to dismiss and joinder therein and the ex parte motion
to stay are deemed withdrawn.

The Court will consider these and

or other motions, if there are any further issues which should
appropriately be determined by the Court, when the Court is
notified of the BAP’s ruling and new notices of hearing are
filed.1/
Also, the Court wishes to notify the parties that: (1)
in the 1970s, when the undersigned was in private practice, Mr.
Locricchio was of substantial assistance in resolving a major
tenants-landlord conflict that involved one of the undersigned’s
clients, and also in assisting the undersigned in a subsequent
lawsuit against the undersigned, his client, the governor of the
State of Hawai‘i, and others (which was related to the resolution
of the foregoing conflict), see Windward Partners v. Ariyoshi,
693 F..2d 928 (9th Cir. 1982); (2) in the 1990s, the undersigned
issued a summary judgment order, which was affirmed by the Ninth
Circuit, against Mr. Locricchio’s client in a case involving a
different major tenants-landlord conflict, Pedrina v. Chun, 906
F. Supp. 1377 (D. Haw. 1995), aff’d 97 F.3d 1296 (9th Cir. 1996);
and (3) also in the 1990s, the undersigned presided over a case
involving a suit by Mr. Locricchio against a police officer and

1/

If the parties wish the Court to consider the motions now
deemed withdrawn, they only need to file new notices of hearing;
the parties need not re-file the actual motions or memoranda.
2

others in which the jury issued a verdict in favor of the
defendants, Locricchio v. Richards, Civ. No. 93-00011 ACK (D.
Haw. Apr. 22, 1994).2/
In view of the foregoing, the Court felt it appropriate
to notify the parties of the above, although the Court believes
that it can preside over the current case in an impartial and
unbiased manner.

Nevertheless, in the event either party

believes the Court should recuse itself from presiding over this
case, such party should file a request for a recusal, including
the grounds therefor, by next Wednesday, August 17, 2011.

2/

The Court is raising this matter at this time because Mr.
Locricchio mentioned the foregoing to the Court’s law clerk in a
telephone conversation today. The undersigned did not find it
necessary to raise this matter earlier in view of the lapse of
years and results in the subsequent cases involving Mr.
Locricchio. The law clerk called Mr. Locricchio because
Locricchio had not yet filed his opposition to Defendants’ motion
to dismiss. It is the practice of the Court to notify parties
when they have failed to timely file their briefs. Similarly,
the Court’s law clerk called Defendants’ attorney after
Plaintiffs filed the July 17, 2011 ex parte motion to stay to
determine whether Defendants would be opposing that motion.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, August 12, 2011.

________________________________
Alan C. Kay
Sr. United States District Judge

Locricchio, et al. v. Continental Investment Company, Ltd., et al., Civ. No.
10-00710 ACK-RLP: Order Staying Hearing Dated September 1, 2011, and
Disclosing the Court’s Past Relationship with Mr. Locricchio.

4