Frost-Tsuji Architects v. Highway Inn, Inc. et al

Filing 327

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON COUNT VI IN FAVOR OF HIGHWAY INN AND HO'OLA MAU; ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS HIGHWAY INN, INC., AND HO'OLA MAU, LLC, ON ANY CIVIL CONSPIRACY CLAIM IN COUNT VII BASED ON A VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF FROST-TSUJI ARCHITECTS' COPYRIGHTS; ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IN FAVOR OF HIGHWAY INN AND HO`OLA MAU ON ANY PORTION OF COUNT VII BASED ON TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE re 237 , 260 , 263 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 11/7/2014. "Partial summary judgment is granted in favor of Highway Inn and Ho'ola Mau with respect to the civil conspiracy claim asserted in Count VII to the extent that claim is based on an alleged violation of Frost-Tsuji's copyrights. Judgment on the pleadings is granted in favor of Defendants Highway Inn and Ho'ola Mau with respect to the tortious interference with contractual relations and rem aining civil conspiracy claims asserted in Counts VI and VII of the Second Amended Complaint." (emt, )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
FROST-TSUJI ARCHITECTS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HIGHWAY INN, INC.; HO`OLA
)
MAU, LLC; BRYCE UYEHARA,
)
A.I.A., INCORPORATED; J.
)
KADOWAKI, INC.; FESTIVAL
)
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; et
)
al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 13-00496 SOM/BMK
ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS ON COUNT VI IN
FAVOR OF HIGHWAY INN AND
HO`OLA MAU; ORDER GRANTING
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS HIGHWAY
INN, INC., AND HO`OLA MAU,
LLC, ON ANY CIVIL CONSPIRACY
CLAIM IN COUNT VII BASED ON A
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF FROSTTSUJI ARCHITECTS’ COPYRIGHTS;
ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS IN FAVOR OF
HIGHWAY INN AND HO`OLA MAU ON
ANY PORTION OF COUNT VII
BASED ON TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON COUNT VI IN FAVOR OF
HIGHWAY INN AND HO`OLA MAU; ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS HIGHWAY INN, INC.,
AND HO`OLA MAU, LLC, ON ANY CIVIL CONSPIRACY CLAIM
IN COUNT VII BASED ON A VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF FROST-TSUJI
ARCHITECTS' COPYRIGHTS; ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS IN FAVOR OF HIGHWAY INN AND HO`OLA MAU ON ANY
PORTION OF COUNT VII BASED ON TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
I.

INTRODUCTION.
Defendants Highway Inn, Inc., and Ho`ola Mau, LLC, seek

judgment on the pleadings with respect to the tortious
interference with contractual relations and civil conspiracy
claims asserted in Counts VI and VII of the Second Amended
Complaint.

The court grants the motion with respect to the

tortious interference claim asserted in Count VI, as no claim is
asserted against Highway Inn or Ho`ola Mau.

To the extent

Plaintiff Frost-Tsuji Architects bases its civil conspiracy claim

on Highway Inn’s and Ho`ola Mau’s alleged violation of FrostTsuji’s copyrights, partial summary judgment is granted in favor
of Highway Inn and Ho`ola Mau, as this court has already
determined that they committed no such copyright violations.
Finally, to the extent the civil conspiracy claim asserted in
Count VII is based on alleged tortious interference, judgment on
the pleadings is granted in favor of Highway Inn and Ho`ola Mau.
Highway Inn cannot tortiously interfere with its own contract,
and no facts are pled supporting Frost-Tsuji’s assertion that
Ho`ola Mau interfered with Frost-Tsuji’s contract with Highway
Inn.
II.

STANDARD.
The court previously set forth the standard for motions

for summary judgment in its order of August 26, 2014.
No. 222.

See ECF

That standard is incorporated here by reference.
The standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings

brought under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
is “functionally identical” to that governing a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion.

United States ex rel. Caffaso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys.,

Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011).

Under Rule 12(c),

“Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, accepting
all factual allegations as true, there is no material fact in
dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.”

Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir.

2

2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Jensen
Family Farms, Inc. v. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
Dist., 644 F.3d 934, 937 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011).
Review is generally limited to the contents of the
complaint.

Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988

(9th Cir. 2001); Campanelli v. Bokrath, 100 F.3d 1476, 1479 (9th
Cir. 1996).

All allegations of material fact are taken as true

and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Fed'n of African Am. Contractors v. City of Oakland, 96 F.3d
1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1996).

Conclusory allegations of law,

unwarranted deductions of fact, and unreasonable inferences are
insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.

Sprewell, 266 F.3d

at 988.
To survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
“factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (examining
Rule 12(b)(6)) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“the pleading
standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual
allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”).

3

While a complaint need not have detailed factual
allegations, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’
of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

The

complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.”

Id. at 570.

“A claim has facial plausibility when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677.

“Naked assertions

devoid of further factual enhancement” that suggest only a “mere
possibility of misconduct” are not enough to state a claim for
relief.

Id. at 698.

Additionally, “[t]hreadbare recitals of

elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory
statements” do not suffice.
III.

Id. at 679.

ANALYSIS.
A.

Highway Inn and Ho`ola Mau Are Entitled to
Judgment on the Pleadings With Respect to the
Tortious Interference With Contract Claim Asserted
in Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint.

Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint asserts that
Frost-Tsuji had a contract with Highway Inn.
Complaint ¶ 62.

See Second Amended

It then alleges that Defendants Bryce E.

Uyehara, A.I.A., Incorporated, J. Kadowaki, Inc., and Festival
Management Corporation, knew of this contract and intentionally
induced Highway Inn to breach it without justification.
4

Id.

¶ 63-65.

Count VI alleges that Frost-Tsuji “has been damaged by

Uyehara, [Kadowaki], and Festival’s conduct in an amount to be
proven at trial.”

Id. ¶ 67.

Count VI asserts no claim against

Highway Inn or Ho`ola Mau.
Highway Inn and Ho`ola Mau seek clarification that they
are not named as defendants with respect to Count VI.

Curiously,

Frost-Tsuji does not admit that its Second Amended Complaint
fails to assert a claim against Highway Inn and/or Ho`ola Mau in
Count VI.

Rather, Frost-Tsuji argues that Ho`ola Mau could

possibly interfere with the contract between Frost-Tsuji and
Highway Inn.

This court need not address Frost-Tsuji’s argument

because Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint asserts no claim
against Highway Inn or Ho`ola Mau.
B.

Partial Summary Judgment Is Granted to Highway Inn
and Ho`ola Mau on Any Part of the Civil Conspiracy
Claim Asserted in Count VII Based on Alleged
Violations of Frost-Tsuji’s Copyrights.

In the court’s order of August 26, 2014, ECF No. 222,
the court ruled that neither Highway Inn nor Ho`ola Mau had
violated Frost-Tsuji’s copyrights.

Given this prior ruling,

summary judgment rather than judgment on the pleadings, is
appropriate with respect to copyright-based claims.

Thus, to the

extent Frost-Tsuji’s civil conspiracy claim asserted in Count VII
of the Second Amended Complaint is premised on copyright
violations, partial summary judgment is granted in favor of
Highway Inn and Ho`ola Mau.
5

C.

To the Extent the Civil Conspiracy Claim Asserted
in Count VII is Based on Claims of Tortious
Interference With Contract, Judgment on the
Pleadings is Granted in Favor of Highway Inn and
Ho`ola Mau.

In part, Count VII of the Second Amended Complaint
asserts a civil conspiracy claim based on Highway Inn and Ho`ola
Mau’s alleged tortious interference with Frost-Tsuji’s contract
with Highway Inn.

Judgment on the pleadings is granted in favor

of Highway Inn and Ho`ola Mau with respect to that claim.
To the extent the civil conspiracy claim is based on
Highway Inn’s alleged tortious interference with its own
contract, judgment on the pleadings is granted in favor of
Highway Inn.

As Frost-Tsuji admits, Highway Inn cannot

tortiously interfere with its own contract.

See ECF No. 298,

PageID # 4908; see also Kahala Royal Corp. v. Goodsill Anderson
Quinn & Stifel, 113 Haw. 251, 274, 151 P.3d 732, 755 (2007) (“A
party cannot ‘interfere’ with its own contracts, so the tort
itself can be committed only by a third party.”).
To the extent the civil conspiracy claim is based on
Ho`ola Mau’s alleged tortious interference with the contract
between Frost-Tsuji and Highway Inn, there are no factual
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint that support such a
claim.

6

IV.

CONCLUSION.
Partial summary judgment is granted in favor of Highway

Inn and Ho`ola Mau with respect to the civil conspiracy claim
asserted in Count VII to the extent that claim is based on an
alleged violation of Frost-Tsuji’s copyrights.

Judgment on the

pleadings is granted in favor of Defendants Highway Inn and
Ho`ola Mau with respect to the tortious interference with
contractual relations and remaining civil conspiracy claims
asserted in Counts VI and VII of the Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 7, 2014.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Frost-Tsuji Architects v. Highway Inn, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 13-00496 SOM/BMK; ORDER
GRANTING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON COUNT VI IN FAVOR OF HIGHWAY INN AND HO`OLA MAU;
ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS HIGHWAY INN, INC., AND
HO`OLA MAU, LLC, ON ANY CIVIL CONSPIRACY CLAIM IN COUNT VII BASED ON A VIOLATION OF
PLAINTIFF FROST-TSUJI ARCHITECTS' COPYRIGHTS; ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
IN FAVOR OF HIGHWAY INN AND HO`OLA MAU ON ANY PORTION OF COUNT VII BASED ON TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE

7