Bracken v. Kyo-Ya Hotels and Resorts et al
Filing
164
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS KYO-YA'S AND OKURA'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND GRANT DEFENDANT CHUNG'S MOTION FOR SUMMA RY JUDGMENT re: 158 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 8/14/2013. (afc)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). All participants are registered to receive electronic notifications.
Bracken v. Kyo-Ya Hotels and Resorts et al
Doc. 164
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
AARON H. OKURA; KINCHUNG
CHUNG; JOHN DOES 1-9; and DOE )
)
ENTITIES 1-5,
)
)
Defendants,
)
)
and
)
)
KYO-YA HOTELS AND RESORTS,
)
L.P., a foreign Limited
)
Partnership;
)
)
Defendant and
)
Counterclaim
)
Plaintiff.
____________________________ )
DILLON L. BRACKEN,
CIVIL NO. 11-00784 LEK-BMK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANTS KYO-YA’S AND OKURA’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS UNDER 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 AND GRANT DEFENDANT CHUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court is Plaintiff Dillon L. Bracken’s
(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants
Kyo-ya’s and Okura’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
Plaintiff’s Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Granting Defendant
Chung’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”), filed on July 5,
2013.
[Dkt. no. 158.]
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Kyo-ya
Hotels and Resorts (“Kyo-ya”) and Defendant Aaron H. Okura
Dockets.Justia.com
(“Okura”)1 filed their memorandum in opposition on July 19, 2013,
and Defendant Kinchung Chung (“Chung”) filed his memorandum in
opposition on July 22, 2013.
[Dkt. nos. 160, 161.]
filed his reply on August 8, 2013.
Plaintiff
[Dkt. no. 163.]
The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition
without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of
Practice of the United States District Court for the District of
Hawai`i (“Local Rules”).
After careful consideration of the
Motion, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal
authority, Plaintiff’s Motion is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons
set forth below.
BACKGROUND
The relevant factual and procedural background in this
case is set forth in this Court’s June 24, 2013 Order
(1) Granting Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Kyo-ya and
Defendant Aaron Okura’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
Plaintiff’s Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) Granting Defendant
Kinchung Chung’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and (3) Denying
Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“6/24/13
Order”).
2013 WL 3223873.
In the 6/24/13 Order, this Court concluded, inter alia,
that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the requisite degree of the
1
Kyo-ya and Okura are collectively referred to as, the
“Kyo-ya Defendants.” Chung and the Kyo-ya Defendants are
collectively referred to as, “Defendants.”
2
Kyo-ya Defendants’ conspiracy or cooperation with Chung to
“transform the private actors into state actors” for purposes of
liability under § 1983.
Id. at *9.
The Court therefore granted
the Kyo-ya Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
Plaintiff’s Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the “Kyo-ya
Defendants’ Motion”), filed on December 18, 2012 [dkt. no. 103].
Id.
The Court also found that, because Chung, as a police
officer, acted reasonably when he detained Plaintiff and asked
him for identification, Chung is entitled to qualified immunity.
The Court therefore granted Chung’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Chung’s Motion”), filed on December 18, 2012 [dkt. no. 104], as
to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for unlawful seizure against Chung.
Id. at *13-14.
In the instant Motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration
of the 6/24/13 Order on the grounds that:
the 6/24/13 Order does
not address Kyo-ya’s status as Chung’s employer; Chung was an
“integral participant” in the incident; Kyo-ya is subject to
liability under § 1983 as an employer of a state actor; and Chung
is not entitled to qualified immunity.
DISCUSSION
In order to obtain reconsideration of the 6/24/13
Order, Plaintiff’s Motion “must accomplish two goals.
First, a
motion for reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the court
3
should reconsider its prior decision.
Second, a motion for
reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision.”
See Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F. Supp.
429, 430 (D. Hawai`i 1996); accord Tom v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, CIV.
NO. 10–00653 SOM/BMK, 2011 WL 2712958, at *1 (D. Hawai`i July 12,
2011) (citations omitted).
This district court recognizes three
grounds for granting reconsideration of an order:
“(1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.”
White v. Sabatino, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1271,
1274 (D. Hawai`i 2006) (citing Mustafa v. Clark County Sch.
Dist., 157 F.3d 1169, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 1998)).
“Whether or not to grant reconsideration[,]” however,
“is committed to the sound discretion of the court.”
Navajo
Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian
Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enter.,
Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000)).
“As long as a district court has jurisdiction over the case, then
it possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider,
rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to
be sufficient.”
City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica
Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
4
First, Plaintiff’s Motion seeks reconsideration of the
6/24/13 Order on the ground that the Court erred by not directly
considering the fact that Chung was an employee of Kyo-ya at the
time of the incident.
In the 6/24/13 Order, however, the Court
acknowledged Plaintiff’s Submission of Additional Exhibits in
Connection with Summary Judgment Motions (“Additional Exhibits”)
[dtk. no. 155], demonstrating that Kyo-ya paid Chung for his
services as a special duty officer at the time of the incident.
2013 WL 3223873, at *8 n.5.
The Court then stated, “the
Additional Exhibits do not alter the Court’s analysis regarding
Chung’s status as a state actor, or the degree of cooperation
between Chung and the Kyo-ya Defendants.”
Id.
Thus, although
the Court considered the fact that Chung was a paid employee of
Kyo-ya on the night of the incident, that fact ultimately did not
alter the Court’s conclusions in the 6/24/13 Order.
Second, Plaintiff’s Motion seeks reconsideration of the
6/24/13 Order on the grounds that:
(1) neither conspiracy,
cooperation, nor knowledge of a plan is necessary for a finding
that Chung was an “integral participant” in the incident; and
(2) Kyo-ya is subject to § 1983 liability because the conduct of
its employees, Okura and Chung, when combined, amounted to state
action.
Plaintiff, however, raised both of these arguments in
connection with the Kyo-ya Defendants’ Motion.
5
This district
court has recognized that “[m]ere disagreement with a previous
order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.”
White, 424
F. Supp. 2d at 1274 (citing Leonq v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.
Supp. 1572 (D. Haw. 1988)).
Furthermore, to the extent that
Plaintiff’s Motion presents different variations of Plaintiff’s
arguments regarding whether the Defendants’ conduct amounted to
state action, those arguments are not properly before this Court.
Plaintiff could have raised those arguments in connection with
the Kyo-ya Defendants’ Motion.
See Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT &
T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Hawai`i 2005)
(“reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal
arguments that could have been presented at the time of the
challenged decision”).
Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion seeks reconsideration of
the 6/24/13 Order on the ground that Chung is not entitled to
qualified immunity because, at the time of the incident, he was
not considered a government employee.
Plaintiff argues that
Chung, as a “moonlighting officer” who was a paid employee of
Kyo-ya at the time of the incident, cannot claim immunity
available to government employees.
With regard to this argument,
Plaintiff could have raised it in connection with Chung’s
6
Motion.2
See id.
To the extent that Plaintiff’s Reply presents different
variations of Plaintiff’s arguments, those arguments are also not
properly before this Court, as Plaintiff should have raised the
arguments in the Motion itself.
See Local Rule LR7.4 (“Any
argument raised for the first time in the reply shall be
disregarded.”).
This Court therefore FINDS that Plaintiff has
not presented any ground warranting reconsideration of the
6/24/13 Order’s rulings granting the Kyo-ya Defendants’ Motion
and Chung’s Motion.
2
The Court notes, however, that even if Plaintiff had
timely raised this argument in connection with Chung’s Motion, it
would not have altered the Court’s analysis and conclusion that
Chung is entitled to qualified immunity.
7
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reconsider Order Granting Defendants Kyo-ya’s and Okura’s Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims Under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and Granting Defendant Chung’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed July 5, 2013, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, August 14, 2013.
/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
DILLON L. BRACKEN VS. AARON H. OKURA, ET AL; CIVIL NO. 11-00784
LEK-BMK; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANTS KYO-YA’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND GRANT DEFENDANT
CHUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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?