Carson v. Kanazawa
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS re( 426 ) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:14-cv-00544-LEK-KSC; re ( 151 ) Motion for Reconsideration in case 1:16-cv-00053-LEK-KSC. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 08/08/2017. Associated Cases: 1:14-cv-00544-LEK-KSC, 1:16-cv-00053-LEK-KSC(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
CHARLES L. CARSON, LINDA
KNERR CARSON, RONALD R.
PARSONS, and JOHN KELLY
SIDNEY K. KANAZAWA, ESQ., a
resident of California,
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, a Virginia
partnership, and DOE
RNI, N.V., L.P.,
SIDNEY K. KANAZAWA, ESQ., a
resident of California,
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, a Virginia
partnership, and DOE
CIVIL 14-00544 LEK-KSC
CIVIL 16-00053 LEK-KSC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
On April 30, 2017, this Court issued its Order Granting
Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Claims
Asserted by Plaintiff RNI, N.V., L.P.; Granting Liability Portion
of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Claims Asserted
by Plaintiffs Charles L. Carson, Linda Knerr Carson, Ronald R.
Parsons, and Joan Kelly Parsons; and Denying as Moot Remaining
Motions for Summary Judgment (“4/30/17 Order”).
[Dkt. no. 424.]
On May 18, 2017, Plaintiffs Charles L. Carson, Linda Knerr
Carson, Ronald R. Parsons, Joan Kelly Parsons (collectively “the
Individual Plaintiffs”), and RNI-N.V., L.P. (“RNI,” all
collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a motion for reconsideration of
the 4/30/17 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”).
Defendants Sidney K. Kanazawa, Esq. (“Kanazawa”), and
McGuireWoods LLP (collectively “Defendants”) filed their
memorandum in opposition on June 1, 2017, and Plaintiffs filed
their reply on June 8, 2017.
[Dkt. nos. 429, 431.]
has considered the Motion for Reconsideration as a non-hearing
matter pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice
of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is
hereby denied for the reasons set forth below.
Plaintiffs bring the Motion for Reconsideration
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
[Motion for Reconsideration
at 2; Mem. in Supp. of Motion for Reconsideration at 2.]
Rule 59(e) states: “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be
filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”
Plaintiffs may seek reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e), even
though final judgment has not been entered in this case.
Grandinetti v. Sells, CIV. NO. 16-00517 DKW/RLP, 2016 WL 6634868,
at *1 (D. Hawai`i Nov. 8, 2016) (“When a ruling has resulted in a
final judgment or order . . . a motion for reconsideration may be
construed as either a motion to alter or amend judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a motion for relief from
judgment under Rule 60(b).” (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah
Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993))).
Rule 59(e) offers “an extraordinary remedy, to be
used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v.
Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In the Ninth Circuit, a successful motion for
reconsideration must accomplish two goals. First,
“a motion for reconsideration must demonstrate
some reason why the court should reconsider its
prior decision.” Na Mamo O `Aha `Ino v. Galiher,
60 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1059 (D. Haw. 1999). Second,
it “must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse
its prior decision.” Id.
Courts have established three grounds
justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice. Allstate
Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir.
2011); Mustafa v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 157
F.3d 1169, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1998). The District
of Hawaii has implemented these standards in Local
United States ex rel. Atlas Copco Compressors LLC v. RWT LLC,
Civ. No. 16-00215 ACK-KJM, 2017 WL 2986586, at *1 (D. Hawai`i
July 13, 2017).
Plaintiffs only base the Motion for
Reconsideration on alleged clear error and manifest injustice.
[Mem. in Supp. of Motion for Reconsideration at 3.]
Relevant to the Motion for Reconsideration, the 4/30/17
Order granted: Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the
Claims Asserted by Plaintiff RNI, N.V., L.P. (“Defendants’ RNI
Motion”); [filed 10/19/16 (dkt. no. 318);] and the liability
portion of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Claims
Asserted by Plaintiffs Charles L. Carson, Linda Knerr Carson,
Ronald R. Parsons, and Joan Kelly Parsons (“Defendants’
Individual Plaintiffs Motion”), [filed 10/19/16 (dkt. no. 322)].1
Plaintiffs first argue that this Court committed clear
error in concluding that RNI released all of its claims against
Centex Homes (“Centex”) in 2008.
Plaintiffs argue that the 2008
Release2 was a general release that could not release claims that
RNI was not aware of at the time.
Plaintiffs assert that the
2008 Release would not have precluded RNI’s claims against Centex
regarding the Beach Villas amenities because the parties to the
2008 Release did not contemplate that the 2008 Release would
cover such claims.
Further, even if the parties to the 2008
This Court denied three other motions for summary
judgment, [dkt. nos. 316, 320, 335,] as moot. [4/30/17 Order at
For the factual background that lead up the 2008 Release,
see the 4/30/17 Order at 7-11.
Release contemplated claims regarding the Beach Villas amenities,
Plaintiffs argue that this Court erred in concluding that the
2008 Release unambiguously encompassed the claims regarding the
Plaintiffs therefore contend that this Court
committed clear error when it concluded that “because the 2008
Release released the claims that RNI could have brought against
Centex regarding the Beach Villas amenities, RNI cannot establish
that any allegedly wrongful acts or omissions by Defendants
caused RNI to lose the ability to bring those claims against
See 4/30/17 Order at 35.
Plaintiffs next argue that this Court erred in
concluding that Defendants’ misconduct was not the proximate
cause of the Individual Plaintiffs’ injuries.
concluded that “the Arbitrator’s and the state court’s legal
errors were intervening, superseding causes that prevent
Defendants from being liable to the Individual Plaintiffs for
erroneously including their units on Exhibit A to the 2010
[4/30/17 Order at 69-70.]
argue that this Court committed clear error because: whether an
event constitutes a superseding cause is an issue of fact that
this Court improperly resolved on summary judgment; this Court
For the factual background of the 2010 Settlement
Agreement and Exhibit A thereto, see the 4/30/17 Order at 14-20,
and for the background of the Arbitrator’s and the state court’s
rulings, see the 4/30/17 Order at 22-24.
erred in its analysis of the tenancy by the entirety issue;4 this
Court made rulings about the Arbitrator’s decisions without a
complete record of the evidence and the arguments presented to
the Arbitrator and without considering all of the theories that
Centex presented to the Arbitrator; and, in concluding that
arbitrator error was foreseeable, this Court failed to consider
well-settled law that an arbitrator’s decision can only be
vacated under limited circumstances.
First, Plaintiffs’ argument that this Court had an
insufficient record of the proceedings before the Arbitrator
Plaintiffs could have presented a more complete record of
the arbitration proceedings in their response to Defendants’
motions for summary judgment but did not.
See Wereb v. Maui
Cty., 830 F. Supp. 2d 1026, 1031 (D. Hawai`i 2011)
(“reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal
arguments that a movant could have presented at the time of the
challenged decision” (some citations omitted) (citing Kona
Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration does
not identify specific material from the arbitration proceedings
which: this Court did not have when it considered Defendants’
summary judgment motions; and Plaintiffs allege would have
The tenancy by the entirety analysis is in the 4/30/17
Order at 37-40.
altered this Court’s analysis of the motions.
for Reconsideration is denied as to Plaintiffs’ argument that
this Court had an insufficient record of the arbitration
All of the other arguments in Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration are arguments that they previously raised – and
this Court considered – in connection with Defendants’ RNI Motion
and Defendants’ Individual Plaintiffs’ Motion.
disagreement with this Court’s rulings and their disappointment
in the outcome of this case are not grounds for reconsideration.
See Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, 16 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1183
(D. Hawai`i 2014) (“Mere disagreement with a previous order is an
insufficient basis for reconsideration.” (citation omitted)).
The Motion for Reconsideration is denied as to Plaintiffs’
attempts to re-litigate issues that this Court considered in
ruling on the underlying motions.
Plaintiffs have failed to establish that this Court
committed clear error in the 4/30/17 Order or that
reconsideration of the order is necessary to prevent manifest
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Reconsider Order Granting Summary Judgment Motions, filed May 18,
2017, is HEREBY DENIED.
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to enter
final judgment immediately.
Judgment is in favor of Defendants
as to all claims, pursuant to this Court’s April 30, 2017 order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, August 8, 2017.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
CHARLES L. CARSON, ET AL. VS. SIDNEY K. KANAZAWA, ET AL; CV 1400544 LEK-KSC; RNI-N.V., L.P. VS. SIDNEY KANAZAWA, ESQ., ET AL;
CV 16-00053 LEK-KSC; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?