Hancock et al v. Kulana Partners, LLC et al

Filing 113

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY re 102 , 103 , 104 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 4/20/2020. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion to stay, Dkt. No. 102, is GRANTED. As a result, all proceedings in this case, including the briefing required by the Court's January 24, 2020 Entering Order and Fidelity's Motion to Strike Jury Demand, Dkt. No. 103, are STAYED pending a decision by the Hawai'i Supreme Court in Grinpas et al. v. Kapaa 382, LLC et al., No. SCWC-14-0000870. Within thirty (30) days of entry of a decision by the Hawai'i Supreme Court, the parties shall file a joint status report in this case. (emt, )

Case 1:13-cv-00198-DKW-WRP Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 3
1481

PageID #:

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 GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY
Plaintiffs,
v.
KULANA PARTNERS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

Defendant Fidelity National Title & Escrow of Hawaii, Inc. (“Fidelity”)
moves to stay this case pending a decision in a case currently before the Hawai‘i
Supreme Court. Dkt. No. 102. Because no opposition has been filed to the motion
to stay, 1 and because a stay is warranted under the circumstances, the motion to stay
is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.
LEGAL STANDARD
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every
court to control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and
1

Defendant Kulana Partners, LLC has moved to join in the motion to stay. Dkt. No. 104. The
motion for joinder is GRANTED. Plaintiff William R. Hancock, individually and as trustee, has
filed a statement of no opposition to the motion to stay. Dkt. No. 112. Plaintiff states that he
does not oppose the motion to stay due to the “changed circumstances of the COVID19
Pandemic.” The “COVID19 Pandemic,” however, is not the basis for the motion to stay, and it
has no clear relationship to whether a stay is appropriate in this case.

Case 1:13-cv-00198-DKW-WRP Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 3
1482

PageID #:

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248,
254 (1936). “The exertion of this power calls for the exercise of sound discretion.”
CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). See Clinton v. Jones, 520
U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings
as an incident to its power to control its own docket.”); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398
F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255).
In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, “the competing interests
which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.”
Id. at 1110 (citing CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268). Those interests include: (A) “the
possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (B) “the hardship or
inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (C) “the
orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of
issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.”
Id.
DISCUSSION
As this Court has previously noted, issues in this case, including issues
regarding the applicability of res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, for
which supplemental briefing is due in May 2020, are “inextricably intertwined” with
issues in the case pending before the Hawai‘i Supreme Court. See 1/10/14 Order at
21 n.2, Dkt. No. 49. In other words, as Fidelity asserts in the motion to stay, at the

2

Case 1:13-cv-00198-DKW-WRP Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 3
1483

PageID #:

very least, a decision in the case before the Hawai‘i Supreme Court could have a
“substantial impact” on this case, including on the need for this Court to even
address the above-mentioned issues. See Dkt. Nos. 102-1 at 10. In this light, the
Court finds no possible damage from granting a stay, the parties will be prejudiced
by having to go forward with this case, and there is a likelihood of the issues here
being simplified by a stay. See Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110. As a result, the motion
to stay is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the motion to stay, Dkt. No. 102, is
GRANTED. As a result, all proceedings in this case, including the briefing
required by the Court’s January 24, 2020 Entering Order and Fidelity’s Motion to
Strike Jury Demand, Dkt. No. 103, are STAYED pending a decision by the Hawai‘i
Supreme Court in Grinpas et al. v. Kapaa 382, LLC et al., No. SCWC-14-0000870.
Within thirty (30) days of entry of a decision by the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, the
parties shall file a joint status report in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 20, 2020 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

3