Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific v. Foss Maritime Company
Filing
121
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF INLANDBOATMEN'S UNION OF THE PACIFIC'S AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CORRECTED CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS [DOC. 62 ] re 95 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 03/29/2016 . Inlandboatmen must file its Corrected Concise Statement of Facts, in the form attached to the Motion for Leave, by April 8, 2016. Foss must file its revised memorandum in opposition, including its revised counterstatements of facts, by April 18, 2016, and Inlandboatmen may file its optional reply by April 25, 2016.Finally, as a result of Inlandboatmen's failure to follow the Local Rules, Foss and Young have incurred a additional attorneys' fees and costs. The Court FINDS that, pursuant to Local Rule 11.1, Inlandboatmen must pay the reasonable attorney's fees and costs related to Foss and Young's response to the Motion for Leave, as well as the attorneys' fees and costs for Foss's revised memoranda in opposition. Foss and Young must submit a motion pursuant to Local Rule 54.3 within four weeks of Inlandboatmen's filing of its Corrected Concise Statement of Facts. (eps) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Participants 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
INLANDBOARTMEN’S UNION OF THE )
PACIFIC,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
FOSS MARITIME COMPANY,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
YOUNG BROTHERS, LIMITED,
)
)
Intervenor)
Defendant.
_____________________________ )
CIVIL 15-00025 LEK-KSC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF INLANDBOATMEN’S UNION
OF THE PACIFIC’S AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
CORRECTED CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS [DOC. 62]
Before the Court is Plaintiff Inlandboatmen’s Union of
the Pacific’s (“Inlandboatmen”) Amended Motion for Leave to File
Corrected Concise Statement of Facts [Doc. 62] (“Motion for
Leave”), filed on February 5, 2016.
[Dkt. no. 95.]
On
February 10, 2016, Intervenor-Defendant Young Brothers, Ltd.
(“Young”) filed a memorandum in opposition (“Young Memorandum in
Opposition to Motion for Leave”), and on February 16, 2016,
Defendant Foss Maritime Co. (“Foss”) filed a memorandum in
opposition (“Foss Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Leave”).
[Dkt. nos. 100, 104.]
2016.
[Dkt. no. 115.]
Inlandboatmen filed a reply on March 3,
The Court finds this matter suitable for
disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) 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 Leave, supporting and opposing
memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, Inlandboatmen’s
Motion for Leave is HEREBY GRANTED for the reasons set forth
below.
BACKGROUND
The Court only repeats the background relevant to the
Motion for Leave.
On September 22, 2015, Foss filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment (“Foss Motion”).
[Dkt. no. 55.]
On November 9,
2015, Inlandboatmen filed a memorandum in opposition, and Foss
filed a reply on November 16, 2015.
[Dkt. nos. 61, 64.]
In its
reply, Foss argued that Inlandboatmen had not complied with Local
Rule 56.1, in that Inlandboatmen “was obligated to object to
Foss’s evidence if it claimed it was not admissible,” and it
failed to do so.
[Reply in Supp. of Foss Motion at 2.]
The
Motion for Summary Judgment came on for hearing on January 25,
2016 (“1/25/16 Hearing”),1 where the Court agreed with Foss that
Inlandboatmen failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1.
On February 1, 2016, Inlandboatmen filed a Motion for
Leave to File Corrected Concise Statement of Facts [62] (“2/1/16
Motion for Leave”).
[Dkt. no. 84.]
1
In an entering order filed
At the 1/25/16 Hearing, the Court also heard argument on
Young’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Young Motion”),
filed on November 23, 2015. [Dkt. no. 67.]
2
on February 3, 2016, the Court denied the 2/1/16 Motion for Leave
without prejudice.
[Dkt. no. 93.]
Thereafter, Inlandboatmen
filed the instant Motion for Leave.2
Inlandboatmen argues that the Motion for Leave:
(1) does not prejudice the parties because its previous concise
statement of facts failed to comply with the Local Rules only in
style, not in substance; and (2) it would prejudice the interests
of justice if the Court were to treat material facts that are
very much in dispute as admitted.
Leave at 1-2.]
[Mem. in Supp. of Motion for
The Corrected Concise Statement of Facts, [Motion
for Leave, Decl. of Carson Flora (“Flora Decl.”), Exh. A
(Inlandboatmen’s Corrected Concise Statement of Facts)
(“Inlandboatmen’s Corrected CSOF”),] according to Young, still
fails to comply with the Local Rules [Young Mem. in Opp. to
Motion for Leave at 3-5].3
Foss argues, inter alia, that:
(1) Inlandboatmen’s delay in filing the Motion for Leave is
especially egregious given that the hearing on the Foss Motion
2
In an entering order filed on February 10, 2016 (“2/10/16
EO”), the Court reserved ruling on the Foss Motion and the Young
Motion pending a final resolution of the Motion for Leave. [Dkt.
no. 97.]
3
Young also argues that the Court should not reserve ruling
on the Young Motion. [Young Mem. in Opp. to Motion for Leave at
2.] The Court notes that it did not request any briefing on its
decision to reserve ruling on the Young Motion. See 2/10/16 EO.
3
was continued for two months;4 (2) Foss will be “severely
prejudiced” if the Motion for Leave is granted because it was
unable to address Inlandboatmen’s Corrected CSOF in the briefing
on the Foss Motion and at the 1/25/16 Hearing; (3) Foss is being
denied the benefit of Local Rule 56.1; (4) the Motion for Leave
fails to comply with the Local Rules; and (5) Inlandboatmen’s
Corrected CSOF is based on inadmissible evidence, and the Motion
for Leave is therefore futile.
[Foss. Mem. in Opp. to Motion for
Leave at 4-8.]
DISCUSSION
Local Rule 56.1 states, in pertinent part,
(b) Opposition Requirements. Any party who
opposes the motion shall file and serve with his
or her opposing papers a separate document
containing a single concise statement that admits
or disputes the facts set forth in the moving
party’s concise statement, as well as sets forth
all material facts as to which it is contended
there exists a genuine issue necessary to be
litigated.
. . . .
(g) Admission of Material Facts. For purposes of
a motion for summary judgment, material facts set
forth in the moving party’s concise statement will
be deemed admitted unless controverted by a
separate concise statement of the opposing party.
4
The hearing on the Foss Motion was originally set for
November 30, 2015, but, in an entering order filed on November
23, 2015, the Court continued the hearing and set it on the same
day as the Young Motion – January 11, 2016. [Dkt. no. 68.] At
the request of counsel, [dkt. no. 70,] the Court continued the
hearing on the Foss Motion and the Young Motion to January 25,
2016 [dkt. no. 72].
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) states:
Failing to Property Support or Address a Fact. If
a party fails to properly support an assertion of
fact or fails to properly address another party’s
assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the
court may:
(1) give an opportunity to properly support
or address the fact;
(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes
of the motion;
(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and
supporting materials – including the facts
considered undisputed – show that the movant
is entitled to it; or
(4) issue any other appropriate order.
The Advisory Committee Notes on the 2010 Amendment to Rule 56
explain that:
Subdivision (e)(2) authorizes the court to
consider a fact as undisputed for purposes of the
motion when response or reply requirements are not
satisfied. This approach reflects the “deemed
admitted” provisions in many local rules. The
fact is considered undisputed only for purposes of
the motion; if summary judgment is denied, a party
who failed to make a proper Rule 56 response or
reply remains free to contest the fact in further
proceedings. And the court may choose not to
consider the fact as undisputed, particularly if
the court knows of record materials that show
grounds for genuine dispute.
(Emphasis added.)
The Court therefore has discretion to decide
whether or not the undisputed facts are deemed admitted.5
5
Local Rule 1.3 explains:
These rules supplement the Federal Rules of Civil
(continued...)
5
Here, while Inlandboatmen did not strictly comply with
Local Rule 56.1, it did submit a Concise Statement of Facts
(“Inlandboatmen’s CSOF”), [filed 11/9/15 (dkt. no. 62),] that
countered the Concise Statement of Facts filed by Foss in Support
of the Foss Motion (“Foss’s CSOF”) [filed 9/22/15 (dkt. no. 56)].
See, e.g., Foss’s CSOF at ¶¶ 11 (“The Hawaiian Tug & Barge
[Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”)] covered only employees
operating Hawaiian Tug & Barge Vessels.”), 12 (“The CBA with
Young Brothers covers only the Young Brothers’ employees
operating inter-island tugs.”); Inlandboatmen’s CSOF at ¶ 2 (“The
CBA covers employees of [Hawaiian Tug & Barge] and [Young].”).
Moreover, the Local Rules that Young and Foss assert
Inlandboatmen’s Corrected CSOF violates do not prejudice Foss and
Young.
Cf. Kosegarten v. Dep’t of the Prosecuting Attorney, 907
F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1157 (D. Hawai`i 2012) (“While the Court does
not condone Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules,
the Court declines to strike Plaintiff’s CSOF because, inter
alia, there is no indication that Plaintiff’s non-compliance was
5
(...continued)
Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and shall be construed, administered,
and employed by the court and parties so as to be
consistent with those rules and to promote the
just, efficient, and economical determination of
every action and proceeding. If any local rule is
or becomes in conflict with a federal statutory
provision or a federal rule, the federal statutory
provision or federal rule shall govern and apply.
6
prejudicial to Defendants.”).
In particular, the Court is
unconvinced that Inlandboatmen’s Corrected CSOF violates Local
Rule 7.2(f).
See Foss Mem. in Opp. to Motion for Leave at 7.
Local Rule 7.2(f) states that “[a]ll motions shall be
accompanied, when appropriate, by affidavits or declarations
sufficient to support material factual assertions and by a
memorandum of law.”
The Court agrees with Inlandboatmen that
affidavits or declarations were not necessary here.
See Reply in
Supp. of Motion for Leave at 4 n.1 (“[Inlandboatmen] did not
believe it appropriate to submit a declaration with its belief
regarding prejudice as ultimately that is a legal issue for the
Court to decide.”).6
Inlandboatmen’s delay in filing the Motion for Leave
was, at the very least, questionable, but the Court FINDS that
the interests of justice weigh in favor of granting the Motion
for Leave.
In addition, the Court agrees with Foss that it may
be prejudiced if it does not have a chance to respond to
Inlandboatmen’s Corrected CSOF, and the Court FINDS that Foss
should have an opportunity to respond.
GRANTS the Motion for Leave.
The Court therefore
Inlandboatmen must file its
6
The Court notes that Foss itself has failed to comply with
some of the Local Rules. Local Rule 56.1(h) states, in pertinent
part: “Affidavits or declarations setting forth facts and/or
authenticating exhibits, as well as exhibits themselves, shall
only be attached to the concise statement.” The declarations
that support the Foss CSOF, however, are attached to the Foss
Motion.
7
Corrected Concise Statement of Facts, in the form attached to the
Motion for Leave, by April 8, 2016.
Foss must file its revised
memorandum in opposition, including its revised counterstatements of facts, by April 18, 2016, and Inlandboatmen may
file its optional reply by April 25, 2016.7
Finally, as a result of Inlandboatmen’s failure to
follow the Local Rules, Foss and Young have incurred a additional
attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Court FINDS that, pursuant to
Local Rule 11.1, Inlandboatmen must pay the reasonable attorney’s
fees and costs related to Foss and Young’s response to the Motion
for Leave, as well as the attorneys’ fees and costs for Foss’s
revised memoranda in opposition.
Foss and Young must submit a
motion pursuant to Local Rule 54.3 within four weeks of
Inlandboatmen’s filing of its Corrected Concise Statement of
Facts.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff
Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific’s Amended Motion for Leave
to File Corrected Concise Statement of Facts [Doc. 62], filed
February 5, 2016, is HEREBY GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Plaintiff may address the admissibility of the evidence in
Inlandboatmen’s Corrected CSOF in its revised memorandum in
opposition. The Court will not make a determination on that
issue at this time.
8
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, March 29, 2016.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
INLANDBOATMEN’S UNION OF THE PACIFIC VS. FOSS MARITIME COMPANY;
CIVIL 15-00025 LEK-KSC; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF INLANDBOATMEN’S
UNION OF THE PACIFIC’S AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CORRECTED
CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
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?