Bruser v. Bank of Hawaii

Filing 181

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' LOCAL RULE 60.1(C) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JANUARY 19, 2016 MINUTE ORDER DEEMING MOOT AND TERMINATED "PLAINTIFFS' MOTION (1) FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE JANUARY 8, 2016 'COURT ORDER REGARDING REMAINING ISSUES FOR JURY TRIAL,' AND (2) FOR A STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE" re 175 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 02/16/2016. (eps)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).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MICHAEL DAVID BRUSER and LYNN
BRUSER, Trustees under that
certain unrecorded Revocable
Living Trust Agreement dated
July 11, 1988, as amended,
doing business as Discovery
Bay Center,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BANK OF HAWAII, a Hawaii
corporation, as Trustee, as
successor by merger with
Hawaiian Trust Company,
Limited, a former Hawaii
corporation and as successor
Trustee under that certain
Trust Agreement dated June 6,
1974,
Defendant,
_____________________________
vs.
JULIE G. HENDERSON, as
Trustee of the Julie G.
Henderson Irrevocable Trust,
and as Trustee of the Jean K.
Gowans Irrevocable Trust, and
as Trustee of the Louis L.
Gowans, Jr. Irrevocable
Trust; RICHARD L. GOWANS, as
Trustee of the Richard L.
Gowans Irrevocable Trust;
KEVIN I. YOKOHAMA;
ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT
OWNERS OF DISCOVERY BAY;
SUSAN SHEETZ; and PATRICIA
SHEETZ BOW,
Intervening Defendants.
_____________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 14-00387 LEK

BANK OF HAWAII, a Hawaii
corporation, as Trustee, as
successor by merger with
Hawaiian Trust Company,
Limited, a former Hawaii
corporation and as successor
Trustee under that certain
Trust Agreement dated June 6,
1974.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Counterclaim Plaintiff, )
)
)
vs.
)
MICHAEL DAVID BRUSER and LYNN )
)
BRUSER, Trustees under that
certain unrecorded Revocable )
Living Trust Agreement dated )
)
July 11, 1988, as amended,
)
doing business as Discovery
)
Bay Center,
)
Counterclaim Defendants. )
_____________________________ )

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ LOCAL RULE 60.1(C)
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JANUARY 19, 2016 MINUTE
ORDER DEEMING MOOT AND TERMINATED “PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
(1) FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE JANUARY 8, 2016 ‘COURT
ORDER REGARDING REMAINING ISSUES FOR JURY TRIAL,’ AND
(2) FOR A STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE”
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Michael David Bruser and
Lynn Bruser’s (“Plaintiffs” or “the Brusers”) Local Rule 60.1(c)
Motion for Reconsideration of January 19, 2016 Minute Order
Deeming Moot and Terminated “Plaintiffs’ Motion (1) for
Clarification of the January 8, 2016 ‘Court Order Regarding
Remaining Issues for Jury Trial,’ and (2) for a Stay of All
Proceedings in This Case” (“Motion for Reconsideration”), filed
on February 2, 2016.

[Dkt. no. 175.]

The Court did not require

any memorandum in opposition.

[Dkt. no. 178.]

The Court finds

this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant
to Rule LR7.2(e) 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 for

Reconsideration and the relevant legal authority, Plaintiffs’
Motion for Reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons set
forth below.
BACKGROUND
The background of this case is well known to the
parties, and the Court repeats only the facts relevant to the
instant matter.

On January 18, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion

(1) for Clarification of the January 8, 2016 “Court Order
Regarding Remaining Issues for Jury Trial,” and (2) for a Stay of
All Proceedings in This Case (“1/8/16 Motion”).

[Dkt. no. 142.]

In an entering order filed the same day, the 1/8/16 Motion was
deemed moot and terminated.

[Dkt. no. 144.]
STANDARD

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule
60.1, which states, in relevant part:
Motions 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;
3

(c)

Manifest error of law or fact.

Motions asserted under Subsection (c) of this
rule must be filed and served not more than
fourteen (14) days after the court’s written order
is filed. . . .
This Court has stated that,
A motion for reconsideration must
(1) “demonstrate reasons why the court should
reconsider its prior decision” and (2) “must set
forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature
to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision.” Hele Ku KB, LLC v. BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP, 873 F. Supp. 2d 1268, 1289 (D. Haw.
2012). The Ninth Circuit has held that
reconsideration is appropriate if (1) the district
court is presented with “newly discovered
evidence,” (2) the district court “committed clear
error or the initial decision was manifestly
unjust,” or (3) “if there is an intervening change
in controlling law.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F. 3d
805, 807 (9th Cir. 2004).
Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., Civil No. 1200064 LEK-KSC, 2015 WL 274131, at *2 (D. Hawai`i Jan. 21, 2015)
(citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs state that they are proceeding under Local
Rule 60.1(c), and do not present any new material facts or
changes in the law.

Plaintiffs, however, also fail to present

any legal authority or fact that demonstrates why the Court
should reconsider its denial of the 1/8/16 Motion as moot.
Plaintiffs state that, “there is . . . nothing to try in this
case as this Court rightly adheres to the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine.”

[Motion for Reconsideration at 3.]
4

The primary

argument in the Motion for Reconsideration appears to be that,
“by being urged by opposing counsel in effect to become a
collection agency for the state courts, this Court is nonetheless
ironically acting contrary to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, since
this is purely a state court matter and is under review by state
appellate courts.”

[Id.]

As they have done repeatedly, Plaintiffs confuse the
issues that remain in this case.

In a previous order, the Court

attempted to address any confusion:
The Court here clarifies the limits of its
ruling. It simply finds that the [Condominium
Conveyance Document (“CCD”)] requires the Brusers
to pay all fees under the Trustee Agreement and
that one such fee is the Trustee Fee. This is the
sum total of the ruling. In short, this Court
makes no judgment as to what the Trustee Fee
should be, who must mutually agree to it, and what
is reasonable. Moreover, it does not interpret
Paragraph 12 of the CCD in the context of the
Trustee Agreement as a whole, or the
understandings of the parties to that agreement.
Those issues are best left for the Trust
Litigation, where the content of the Trust
Agreement is already being litigated.[1] If, on
appeal, the state court finds that the probate
court does not have jurisdiction over such
matters, the Brusers may possibly press those
claims in this Court. However, at present, this
Court may not consider them due to the RookerFeldman doctrine.
[Order Granting Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Bank of Hawaii’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to its First Counterclaim

1

The 7/21/15 Order explains that the Trust Litigation
refers to the “ongoing state court proceedings related to the
Trust Agreement.” [7/21/15 Order at 4.]
5

Against Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, and Joinder of
Intervenor Defendant Association of Apartment Owners of Discovery
Bay; and Denying the Other Joinders Thereto, filed 7/21/15 (dkt.
no. 88) (“7/21/15 Order”), at 16.]

The Court reiterated this

point in an entering order filed on January 8, 2016 (“1/8/16
EO”), [dkt. no. 128,] where it stated:
As more fully explained in the 7/21/15 Order,
this Court may not act as an appellate court and
review the state probate court’s rulings related
to the Trust Agreement. Therefore, it must
dismiss as a matter of law, pursuant to the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, any claims related to the
interpretation of the Trust Agreement or the
reasonableness of the trustee fees, including:
the Brusers’ claim seeking declaratory judgment
that the Trust Agreement does not hold them liable
for payment of trustee fees; and BOH and AOAO’s
counterclaims for breach of the Trust Agreement.
See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462, 482-86 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263
U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923).
[1/8/16 EO at 4.]
Plaintiffs question how “this Court propose[s] to
attempt to enforce in effect a state court judgment on appeal
. . . without violating the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and common
sense?”

[Motion for Reconsideration at 4.]

Under the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine, the Court is barred from addressing any claims
related to the Trust Agreement, which is the subject of the state
court litigation.

See 7/21/15 Order at 12 n.15 (“This Court may

not act as an appellate court over the state probate court and
the Trust Litigation.”).

As the Court made clear in the 7/21/15

6

Order and the 1/8/16 EO, the remaining claims concern only the
CCD.

The Court has made no “[m]anifest error of law or fact”,

see Local Rule 60.1(c), and Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration is therefore DENIED.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration, filed February 2, 2016, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, February 16, 2016.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

MICHAEL DAVID BRUSER, ET AL. VS. BANK OF HAWAII, ET AL; CIVIL 1400387 LEK-RLP; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ LOCAL RULE 60.1(C)
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JANUARY 19, 2016 MINUTE ORDER
DEEMING MOOT AND TERMINATED “PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION (1) FOR
CLARIFICATION OF THE JANUARY 8, 2016 ‘COURT ORDER REGARDING
REMAINING ISSUES FOR JURY TRIAL,’ AND (2) FOR A STAY OF ALL
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE”

7