St. Classis Brown v. DCK Worldwide LLC
Filing
131
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S EX-PARTE MOTION TO APPEAL 118 RULING BY JUDGE KENNETH MANSFIELD RENDERED ON APRIL 13, 2016. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 6/17/2016. (ecs, )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
CLINTON C. ST. CLASSIS BROWN, )
II,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DCK WORLDWIDE LLC, ET AL.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )
CIVIL 14-00559 LEK-BMK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX-PARTE MOTION TO APPEAL RULING
BY JUDGE KENNETH MANSFIELD RENDERED ON APRIL 13, 2016
On April 19, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Clinton C. St.
Classis Brown, II (“Plaintiff”) filed an Ex-Parte Motion to
Appeal Ruling by Judge Kenneth Mansfield Rendered on April 13,
2016 (“Appeal”).1
[Dkt. no. 118.]
Defendants dck Worldwide LLC,
dck Guam LLC, and DCK Pacific Guam, LLC (collectively
“Defendants”) filed a memorandum in opposition on May 12, 2016.
[Dkt. no. 125.]
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 Appeal, supporting and opposing memoranda,
and the relevant legal authority, Plaintiff’s Appeal is HEREBY
1
On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second motion
challenging the magistrate judge’s rulings (“5/12/16 Motion”).
[Dkt. no. 128.] In an entering order filed on May 17, 2016, the
Court found that the 5/12/16 Motion duplicated the instant Motion
and struck it from the record. [Dkt. no. 129.]
DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from February 2013
to April 2013 as a Construction Quality Control Manager on a
hospital project in Dededo, Guam (“Project”).
[First Amended
Complaint, filed 5/6/15 (dkt. no. 37), at ¶¶ 4, 23.]
He states
that, a few weeks into his job, a representative of the hospital
asked Plaintiff to show him around the Project.
During the tour,
Plaintiff, at the representative’s request, pointed out problems
with the Project.
[Id. at ¶ 7.]
Plaintiff alleges that, after
the tour, Defendants began to treat him differently.
treatment included, inter alia:
This
a reprimand for calling in sick;
verbal abuse for calling in sick; and being forced to work longer
hours than other employees.
[Id. at ¶¶ 9-12.]
Plaintiff further
alleges that he was subjected to racial slurs and other unfair
treatment based on his race.
[Id. at ¶¶ 15-21, 31-37.]
On April
14, 2013, Plaintiff was terminated from his employment with
Defendants, and he states that Defendants went out of their way
to ensure that he did not find another job in the construction
industry in Guam or Hawai`i.
[Id. at ¶¶ 23, 25.]
The First Amended Complaint states claims for:
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Count I”);
[id. at ¶ 39;] retaliation in violation of Title VII
2
(“Count II”); [id. at ¶¶ 40-42;] violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985
(“Count III”); [id. at ¶¶ 43-44;] violation of Haw. Rev. Stat.
Chapter 378; [id. at ¶¶ 45-46;] and intentional infliction of
emotional distress (“Count IV”) [id. at ¶¶ 47-50].
On February 3, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for an
Order Prohibiting Plaintiff Clinton St. Classis Brown II’s Direct
Contact and Harassment of Witnesses, Employees, and Agents of
Defendants (“Contact Motion”).
[Dkt. no. 95.]
The Contact
Motion sought a court order prohibiting Plaintiff from contacting
Defendants’ witnesses, officers, and agents.
The motion also
sought fees and costs incurred as a result of filing the motion
and attending the hearing.2
[Mem. in Supp. of Contact Motion at
6.]
On February 12, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for
Protective Order Concerning Plaintiffs Requests for
Production/Discovery of Financial Information of Defendants, Its
Officers, Employees and/or Agents (“Motion for Protective
Order”).
[Dkt. no. 100.]
The motion sought a protective order,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), regarding Defendants’
financial information, including, inter alia, tax returns, the
2
Defendants state that, at the Fed. R. Civ. P. 16
conference in this matter, the magistrate judge “asked
[Plaintiff] if he would restrict his contact in this matter to
[Defendants’ counsel’s] office, and [Plaintiff] agreed to do so.”
[Mem. in Supp. of Contact Motion at 1-2.] Plaintiff, however,
did not comply with the magistrate judge’s instructions. See id.
at 2-3.
3
value of certain federal contracts, and employees’ personal tax
returns.
The Motion for Protective Order also sought to quash
Plaintiff’s subpoenas seeking such information.
[Motion for
Protective Order at 2-3.]
On February 18, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for
Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Failure to Provide Discovery (“Motion
for Sanctions”).
sought:
[Dkt. no. 104.]
The Motion for Sanctions
the production of discovery requested and required of
Plaintiff pursuant to previous court orders; sanctions for
failure to provide the discovery within thirty days; and
attorneys’ fees and costs for filing the motion and attending the
hearing.
[Mem. in Supp. of Motion for Sanctions at 13.]
All three motions were heard by the magistrate judge on
April 13, 2016.
At the hearing, the magistrate judge orally:
granted the Contact Motion, without attorneys’ fees and costs;
granted the Motion for Protective Order without attorneys’ fees
and costs; and granted in part and denied in part the Motion for
Sanctions, granting all but one of the sanctions requested by
Defendants.
[Minutes, filed 4/13/16 (dkt. no. 116), at 1-2.]
April 26, 2016, the magistrate judge filed written orders in
accordance with his oral rulings.
See dkt. nos. 121-123.
STANDARD
This district court has stated:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a
district judge may designate a magistrate judge to
4
On
hear and decide a pretrial matter pending before
the court. The decision of the magistrate judge
on non-dispositive matters is final. Bhan v. NME
Hosp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991).
However, a district judge may reconsider a
magistrate’s order on these non-dispositive
pretrial matters and set aside that order, or any
portion thereof, if it is “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); LR 74.1; see Rivera v.
NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004);
see also Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041
(9th Cir. 2002).
The threshold of the “clearly erroneous” test
is high. See Boskoff v. Yano, 217 F. Supp. 2d
1077, 1084 (D. Haw. 2001). The magistrate judge’s
factual findings must be accepted unless the court
is “left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” United States
v. Silverman, 861 F.2d 571, 576-[77] (9th Cir.
1988). “The reviewing court may not simply
substitute its judgment for that of the deciding
court.” Grimes v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 951 F.2d
236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).
“A decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it
applies an incorrect legal standard or fails to
consider an element of the applicable standard.”
Na Pali Haweo Cmty. Ass’n v. Grande, 252 F.R.D.
672, 674 (D. Haw. 2008); see Hunt v. Nat’l
Broadcasting Co., 872 F.2d 289, 292 (9th Cir.
1989) (noting that such failures constitute abuse
of discretion).
Himmelfarb v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, CV. No. 10-00058
DAE-KSC, 2011 WL 4498975, at *2 (D. Hawai`i Sept. 26, 2011).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and the Court must
construe his filings liberally.
See, e.g., Pregana v.
CitiMortgage, Inc., Civil No. 14-00226 DKW-KSC, 2015 WL 1966671,
at *2 (D. Hawai`i Apr. 30, 2015) (“The Court liberally construes
5
the [plaintiffs’] filings because they are proceeding pro se.”
(citing Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987)).
Even construing the Appeal liberally, Plaintiff has not provided
any grounds upon which the Court may set aside the magistrate
judge’s rulings.
Plaintiff claims that the magistrate judge made an
error in his ruling on the Motion for Protective Order because
“[t]hese documents are important to show that the Defendants
. . . are not following [f]ederal guidelines as federal
contractors receiving federal tax dollars[.]”3
(emphasis omitted).]
[Appeal at 4
Defendants contend that they filed the
Motion for Protective Order because the financial information
Plaintiff sought is protected by the Hawai`i State Constitution
and because “Plaintiff has not made a prima facie case for
punitive damages against Defendants.”
[Mem. in Opp. at 15.]
In
his written order granting in part and denying in part the Motion
for Protective Order, the magistrate judge explained “[i]f, later
in the case, Plaintiff can meet the requirements for obtaining
this discovery, the Court will revisit the issue at that time.”
[Dkt. no. 122 at 3.]
It is clear to this Court that the
3
The Court notes, without addressing the truth of
Plaintiff’s assertions, that whether or not Defendants are
complying with federal guidelines is simply not relevant to any
of Plaintiff’s claims in this case. Further, even if it were
relevant, the Court questions whether Plaintiff would have
standing to bring such a claim.
6
magistrate judge considered the documents requested by Plaintiff,
correctly applied the law in concluding that Plaintiff’s requests
were inappropriate at this time, and allowed for possible
discovery of the requested documents in the future.
The Court
FINDS that this ruling is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary
to law.
Similarly, Plaintiff appears to allege that the
magistrate judge made an error of law in his ruling on the
Contact Motion.
See Appeal at 4 (“To be barred from contacting
these witnesses that no longer work for the Defendants . . . is a
gross miscarr[i]age of justice[.]” (emphasis omitted)).
argument is unavailing.
This
In his order granting in part and
denying in part the Contact Motion, the magistrate judge
explained, “[a]ll communication between [Plaintiff] and
Defendants . . . , including current and former officers,
employees, and agents will be only through the law offices of
O’Connor, Playdon & Guben.”4
[Dkt. no. 121 at 2-3.]
The
magistrate judge continued, “[Plaintiff] remains free to take
proper discovery of these witnesses, which discovery shall be
arranged through the law offices of O’Connor, Playdon & Guben.
If O’Connor, Playdon & Guben does not represent a former dck
officer, employee, or agent, it shall so advise [Plaintiff] so
4
O’Connor, Playdon & Guben is the law firm representing
Defendants.
7
that he may contact such witness(es) directly.”
[Id. at 3.]
Further, it is uncontested that the communications that gave rise
to the Contact Motion were not “legitimate attempt[s] . . . to
interview a witness by Plaintiff in preparation for bringing his
claims,” but were instead “an all too familiar pattern of abuse
which escalates over time.”
[Mem. in Opp. at 12.]
Contrary to
his assertions, Plaintiff has not been barred from contacting
potential witnesses, but simply must do so through Defendants’
counsel.
The Court FINDS that the magistrate judge’s ruling is
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Plaintiff does not provide any argument related to the
Motion for Sanctions.
Instead, the remainder of the Appeal
consists of statements expressing Plaintiff’s strong disagreement
with the magistrate judge’s rulings, and conclusory statements
regarding Defendants’ alleged attempts to avoid liability.
See,
e.g., Appeal at 4 (alleging that Defendants have “sold 95% of[]
its equipment and federal contracts to one of its new
subsidiaries” and “changed its name” to avoid liability in the
instant matter (emphasis omitted)).
These statements do not
establish grounds upon which the Court may reconsider the
magistrate judge’s rulings.
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s actions – as described
in the Contact Motion, Motion for Protective Order, and Motion
for Sanctions – are very troubling.
8
Plaintiff is reminded that
he must comply with both the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
While he may feel frustrated, overwhelmed, or
misunderstood at times, Plaintiff must follow these rules.
In
addition, the Court reminds all parties of the magistrate judge’s
instruction that all further communication “shall be governed by
the Hawaii State Bar Association’s Guidelines of Professional
Courtesy.”
[Dkt. no. 121 at 3.]
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff Clinton C. St.
Classis Brown, II’s Ex-Parte Motion to Appeal Ruling by Judge
Kenneth Mansfield Rendered, filed April 13, 2016, is HEREBY
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, June 17, 2016.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
CLINTON C. ST. CLASSIS BROWN, II VS. DCK WORLDWIDE LLC, ET AL;
CIVIL 14-00559 LEK-BMK; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX-PARTE MOTION
TO APPEAL RULING BY JUDGE KENNETH MANSFIELD RENDERED ON APRIL 13,
2016
9
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?