PRM KAUAI, LLC v. GIBSON

Filing 129

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT'S JULY 23, 2015 ORDER re: 95 . Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 12/23/2015. July 23, 2015 Order (docket entry no. [92 ]): ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 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 HAWAI`I

PRM KAUAI, LLC and PETER R.
MORRIS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

CIVIL NO. 14-00164 DKW-KSC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
AND/OR MODIFICATION OF THE
COURT’S JULY 23, 2015 ORDER

JAMES GIBSON and BANCENTRE
CORP.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
AND/OR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S JULY 23, 2015 ORDER
On July 23, 2015, this Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying
in Part Defendants’ Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings (“July 23, 2015
Order”). Dkt. No. 92. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification
and/or Modification of the Court’s July 23, 2015 Order (“Motion for
Clarification”). Dkt. No. 95. Because it is readily apparent that both parties
understand the Court’s July 23, 2015 Order, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification is
DENIED.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs PRM Kauai, LLC, individually and on behalf of Kauai Beach
Villas—Phase II, LLC (“KBV II”), and Peter R. Morris filed an Amended
Complaint seeking to void a loan made by Defendant Bancentre to KBV II that
was personally guaranteed by Morris and that Plaintiffs claim was procured by
Defendants’ fraud. Dkt. No. 31. Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings or, Alternatively, to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and
Failure to Join. Dkt. No. 51.
In its July 23, 2015 Order, the Court held that “as to the claims purportedly
brought by KBV II, and by PRM Kauai on behalf of KBV II, . . . the Court lacks
jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims . . . ” Dkt. No. 92 at 2. The Court explained
that “PRM Kauai’s authority to bring claims on behalf of KBV II must first be
resolved pursuant to a prescribed alternative dispute resolution process.” Dkt. No.
92 at 2. The Court then went on to state several times in the Order that it lacks
jurisdiction over KBV II’s claims. Dkt. No. 92 at 10-11.
Thereafter, on July 31, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Clarification
and/or Modification of the Court’s July 23, 2015 Order. Dkt. No. 95. Plaintiffs
claim that “this Court should clarify that dismissal of [KBV II] as a plaintiff from
this lawsuit is based on FRCP 12(b)(1), without prejudice, and not on the merits.”
Dkt. No. 95-1 at 3.
2

Per the parties’ request, the Court stayed disposition of the Motion for
Clarification while the parties engaged in settlement discussions. On November 2,
2015, the parties informed the Court that they were unable to reach a settlement,
resulting in the Court lifting the stay. Dkt. No. 103.
On November 17, 2015, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Clarification, asserting that “there is nothing in the Court’s Order indicative of
‘a mistake arising from oversight or omission[.]’” Dkt. No. 108 at 5 (citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a)). On December 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their reply. Dkt. No.
112.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs request that this Court issue an order pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(a) clarifying its July 23, 2015 Order. Dkt. No. 95. In their
Motion for Clarification, Plaintiffs contend that the July 23, 2015 Order is
“ambiguous as to whether KBV II’s claims are dismissed from this action without
prejudice and was based on Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
thereby demonstrating a need for clarification.” Dkt. No. 95 at 2. Despite
requesting clarification, Plaintiffs state in their Motion that “[i]t is clear from the
Order’s language that the Court did not intend to reach the merits of KBV II’s
claims or prevent KBV II from re-asserting its claims after the dispute between
Pahio Marketing, Inc. and PRM Kauai, LLC is resolved under the alternative
3

dispute resolution process prescribed under the Operating Agreement.” Dkt. No.
95-1 at 5.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) permits a court to “correct a clerical
mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a
judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Having reviewed the Motion for
Clarification, together with the July 23, 2015 Order, the Court finds it unnecessary
to clarify or modify its July 23, 2015 Order. As the briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Clarification reflects, there is no lack of awareness or clarity regarding the
parties’ understanding of the Court’s July 23, 2015 Order.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification (Dkt. No. 95) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 23, 2015 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

PRM Kauai, LLC, et al. v. Gibson; CV 14-00164 DKW-KSC; ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR MODIFICATION
OF THE COURT’S JULY 23, 2015 ORDER

4