Novak et al v. United States of America et al
Filing
22
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION re: 17 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 7/1/2013. ~ Order denies the Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's "Order Granting the United States of Amer ica's Motion to Dismiss," doc no. 15 ~ (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). 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
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and )
)
DOES 1-100 inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )
PATRICK NOVAK; DANIEL ROCHA;
LARRY KENNER, dba KENNER,
INC., a Hawai`i corporation;
KEN SCHOOLLAND; BJORN
ARNTZEN; PHILIP R. WILKERSON;
and WILLIAM AKINA, Ph.D.,
Individually and as
representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons,
CIVIL 12-00638 LEK-RLP
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Patrick Novak,
Daniel Rocha, Larry Kenner, Ken Schoolland, Bjorn Arntzen,
Philip R. Wilkerson, and William Akina’s (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”), filed on
May 23, 2013.
[Dkt. no. 17.]
Defendant the United States of
America (the “Government”) filed its memorandum in opposition to
the Motion on June 5, 2013.
[Dkt. no. 19.]
their reply on June 19, 2013.
Plaintiffs filed
[Dkt. no. 20.]
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,
Plaintiffs’ Motion is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons set forth
below.
BACKGROUND
This case involves Plaintiffs’ Complaint against the
Government seeking, among other things, “a declaration that the
Jones Act is invalid as it applies to interstate commerce
involving the State of Hawaii’s commercial activities with the
other United States of America, Nations, and Indian Tribes of the
United States of America, and to recover costs of suit and
reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
[Dkt. no. 1 (Complaint), at ¶ 4.]
Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of this Court’s April
26, 2013 Order Granting the United States of America’s Motion to
Dismiss, in which the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint in
its entirety with prejudice (“4/26/13 Order”).
Novak v. United
States, Civ. No. 12-00638 LEK-RLP, 2013 WL 1817802 (D. Hawai`i
Apr. 26, 2013).
In the 4/26/13 Order, the Court found that
Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their challenge to the Jones
Act because they failed to meet the prudential standing
requirements.
Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiffs
alleged only generalized grievances on behalf of an extremely
broad class of persons and, therefore, failed to demonstrate
standing as a matter of law.
Id. at *4-5.
In the instant Motion, Plaintiffs seek reconsideration
2
of the 4/26/13 Order on the grounds that the Court “erred in
dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing [because]
Plaintiffs satisfy the threshold required of Article III and no
prudential barriers bar this cause of action.”
[Mem. in Supp. of
Motion at 2.]
DISCUSSION
In order to obtain reconsideration of the 4/26/13
Order, Plaintiffs’ Motion “must accomplish two goals.
First, a
motion for reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the court
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 Cnty. Sch. Dist.,
157 F.3d 1169, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 1998)).
3
The District of Hawai`i
has implemented these standards in Local Rule 60.1.1
“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)).
Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks reconsideration on the ground
that the Court erred in finding that Plaintiffs failed to meet
the prudential standing requirements.
Plaintiffs argue that they
have alleged that their injuries are “differentiated and
specific.”
[Mem. in Supp. of Motion at 7-8.]
The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ Motion essentially
reiterates the same standing arguments that Plaintiffs made in
their opposition to the Government’s motion to dismiss.
[Mem. in
Opp. to Government’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint With Prejudice,
filed 4/1/13 (dkt. no. 10), at 6-13.]
Specifically, Plaintiffs
argued in their opposition to the Government’s motion to dismiss
that their Complaint alleged sufficiently particularized harm in
light of the allegations regarding the failure of Novak’s
business, Akina’s alleged loss of $364,615.00 over thirty-three
years, Schoolland’s inability to ship his car directly from China
1
Local Rule 60.1 provides, in part, that: “[m]otions for
reconsideration of interlocutory orders may be brought only upon
the following grounds: (a) Discovery of new material facts not
previously available; (b) Intervening change in law; (c) Manifest
error of law or fact.”
4
to Hawai`i, and the other Plaintiffs’ alleged losses due to the
high price of cargo shipping between Hawai`i and the West Coast.
[Id. at 6-8.]
Plaintiffs reiterate those arguments here as the
basis of the instant Motion.
[Motion at 4-5.]
As such,
Plaintiffs’ arguments in the instant Motion were before the Court
when it issued the 4/26/13 Order, and Plaintiffs appear to seek
reconsideration on the basis that they simply disagree with the
Court’s analysis in that order.
Mere disagreement with the
Court’s analysis in the 4/26/13 Order is not, however, a
sufficient basis for reconsideration.
See White v. Sabatino, 424
F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1274 (D. Hawai`i 2006) (citing Leong v. Hilton
Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572 (D. Hawai`i 1988)); Haw.
Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D.
Hawai`i 2005).
Plaintiffs have failed to establish any manifest
error of law or fact in the 4/26/13 Order, nor have they
identified any newly discovered or previously unavailable
evidence, or intervening change in controlling law.
The Court
therefore FINDS that Plaintiffs have not presented any ground
warranting reconsideration of the 4/26/13 Order.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration, filed on May 23, 2013, is HEREBY DENIED.
//
//
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, July 1, 2013.
/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
PATRICK NOVAK, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; CIVIL NO. 1200638 LEK-RLP; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
6
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?