Hancock et al v. Kulana Partners, LLC et al

Filing 101

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT, VACATING ORDER IN PART, AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE re 49 , 50 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 1/8/2020. Therefore, in light of the foregoing, the Clerk is instructed to VACATE the Judgment, Dkt. No. 50. In addition, the Clerk is instructed to VACATE the Order, Dkt. No. 49, to the extent the Order determined that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute-of-limitations. Because the basis for dismissing Pl aintiff's claims has been vacated, and this case has, thus, been re-opened, it is necessary to proceed anew. Having considered the parties' positions in their joint statement, the Court concludes that it is most efficient to set a briefing schedule in order to address the arguments raised in Defendants' motions that were not relied upon by the Court in its January 2014 Order dismissing Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the Court sets the following briefing schedule: On or before February 7, 2020, Defendants, individually or collectively, may file a supplemental brief in support of the arguments raised in their original motions and not as-yet conclusively determined by this Court. On or b efore February 21, 2020, Plaintiff may file a response brief in opposition to any argument raised in Defendants' supplemental brief(s). On or before March 6, 2020, Defendants may file an optional reply brief in support of their positions. (emt, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I

WILLIAM R. HANCOCK, individually Case No. 13-cv-00198-DKW-WRP
and as trustee of Hancock and
Company, Inc., et al.,
ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT,
VACATING ORDER IN PART, AND
Plaintiffs,
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
v.
KULANA PARTNERS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court following the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s
answering of certified questions (“Supreme Court Order”), Dkt. No. 97, and the
parties’ Joint Proposed Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 100.
On January 10, 2014, this Court entered an Order granting Defendant Kulana
Partners, LLC’s motion to dismiss, granting Defendant Fidelity National Title &
Escrow of Hawaii Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and denying Plaintiff
William Hancock’s counter-motion for summary judgment and preliminary
injunction (“Order”). Dkt. No. 49. The Court did so on the basis of a
statute-of-limitations argument that Defendants had raised in their motions. On
January 14, 2014, Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants. Dkt. No. 50.

After Plaintiff appealed the Order, inter alia, on June 9, 2017, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Judgment and remanded for this Court to
certify two questions to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court. Dkt. No. 70. The same day,
this Court certified the questions, as directed. Dkt. No. 71.
On November 13, 2019, after re-framing the certified questions, the Hawai‘i
Supreme Court answered the same. Dkt. No. 97. Following receipt of the
Supreme Court Order, this Court instructed the parties to file a joint statement
setting forth a proposed plan and schedule going forward for this action. Dkt. No.
98. On December 31, 2019, the parties filed their joint statement. Dkt. No. 100.
In their joint statement, the parties agree that, in light of the Hawai‘i Supreme
Court Order, there is no longer a basis to grant Defendants’ motions on the basis of
the statute-of-limitations. Id. at 3. The Court agrees. Therefore, in light of the
foregoing, the Clerk is instructed to VACATE the Judgment, Dkt. No. 50. 1 In
addition, the Clerk is instructed to VACATE the Order, Dkt. No. 49, to the extent the
Order determined that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute-of-limitations.
Because the basis for dismissing Plaintiff’s claims has been vacated, and this
case has, thus, been re-opened, it is necessary to proceed anew. Having considered
the parties’ positions in their joint statement, the Court concludes that it is most

1

The Court recognizes that this direction to the Clerk may not be necessary in light of the Ninth
Circuit having vacated the Judgment on June 9, 2017 and subsequently issuing its mandate on July
25, 2017. See Dkt. Nos. 70, 76. Nonetheless, the Court does so for purposes of clarity.
2

efficient to set a briefing schedule in order to address the arguments raised in
Defendants’ motions that were not relied upon by the Court in its January 2014
Order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the Court sets the following
briefing schedule:
•

On or before February 7, 2020, Defendants, individually or
collectively, may file a supplemental brief in support of the arguments
raised in their original motions and not as-yet conclusively determined
by this Court.

•

On or before February 21, 2020, Plaintiff may file a response brief in
opposition to any argument raised in Defendants’ supplemental
brief(s).

•

On or before March 6, 2020, Defendants may file an optional reply
brief in support of their positions.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court elects to decide the foregoing without
a hearing. Each brief described above shall not exceed ten (10) pages, except any
optional reply shall not exceed six (6) pages. To be clear as to the expected content
of the parties’ briefs, they should not reiterate arguments previously asserted either
in their original motions or oppositions. Instead, the parties may simply cite the
relevant pages upon which the arguments they wish to rely anew may be found. In
the event that some new and relevant legal argument, factual event, or change in the

3

law has taken place in the time period since the parties’ original arguments were
made, the parties may present those arguments or events in their supplemental
briefs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2020 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

4