Navaja v. Honolulu Academy of Arts et al
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGES ORDER AND ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFF TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE U.S. DEPT OF LABOR REPORTS" re 53 Motion for Reconsideration re 52 Ord er. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 03/28/2017. (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). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
HONOLULU ACADEMY OF ARTS,
STEPHAN JOST DIRECTOR,
LINDA FERRARA, JAME HUSBAND, )
JAMES J. NAVAJA,
CIVIL 15-00344 LEK-RLP
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE JUDGES ORDER AND ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFF TO AMEND HIS
COMPLAINT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE U.S. DEPT OF LABOR REPORTS”
On March 9, 2017, this Court issued its Order Granting
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Verifiable Complaint for
Employment Harassment, Discrimination, Retroactive Back Pay
[Dkt. no. 52.]
On March 23, 2017, pro se
Plaintiff James J. Navaja (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for
reconsideration of the 3/9/17 Order (“Motion for
[Dkt. no. 53.]
The Court has considered the
Motion for Reconsideration as a non-hearing matter pursuant to
Plaintiff filed his “Amended Verifiable Complaint for
Employment Discrimination, Harassment Retroactive Back Pay”
(“Amended Complaint”) on September 28, 2016. [Dkt. no. 45.]
Defendants Honolulu Academy of Arts (“HAA”), Stephan Jost
(“Jost”), Chris Atherall, Linda Ferrara, and Jame Husband
(“Defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss Amended Verifiable
Complaint for Employment Harassment, Discrimination, Retroactive
Back Pay (“Second Motion to Dismiss”) on October 12, 2016. [Dkt.
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 and the relevant legal
authority, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is HEREBY
DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
This Court has previously stated that a motion for
“must accomplish two goals. First, a motion for
reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the
court should reconsider its prior decision.
Second, a motion for reconsideration must set
forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature
to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision.” See Davis v. Abercrombie, Civil No.
11-00144 LEK-BMK, 2014 WL 2468348, at *2 (D.
Hawaii June 2, 2014) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). This district court
recognizes three circumstances where it is proper
to grant reconsideration of an order: “(1) when
there has been an intervening change of
controlling law; (2) new evidence has come to
light; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Tierney v.
Alo, Civ. No. 12-00059 SOM/KSC, 2013 WL 1858585,
at *1 (D. Hawaii May 1, 2013) (citing School
District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262
(9th Cir. 1993)). “Mere disagreement with a
previous order is an insufficient basis for
reconsideration.” Davis, 2014 WL 2468348, at *3
n.4 (citations and internal quotation marks
Riley v. Nat’l Ass’n of Marine Surveyors, Inc., Civil No. 1400135 LEK-RLP, 2014 WL 4794003, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Sept. 25,
Further, “reconsideration may not be based on evidence
and legal arguments that a movant could have presented at the
time of the challenged decision.”
Wereb v. Maui Cty., 830 F.
Supp. 2d 1026, 1031 (D. Hawai`i 2011) (some citations omitted)
(citing Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890
(9th Cir. 2000)).
In the instant Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff
argues that this Court should reconsider the 3/9/17 Order and
allow him to file an amended complaint which includes the
findings from the United States Department of Labor’s (“DoL”)
investigation of HAA.
Plaintiff argues that this will establish
“Plaintiff’s compliance with this court in exhausting all his
[Motion for Reconsideration at 1.]
First, this is an argument that Plaintiff could have
raised when the Second Motion to Dismiss was pending before this
However, Plaintiff did not file a response to the Second
Motion to Dismiss.
See 3/9/17 Order at 1.
This Court therefore
cannot grant reconsideration of the 3/9/17 Order based on this
See Wereb, 830 F. Supp. 2d at 1031.
Second, even though Plaintiff did not file a response
to the Second Motion to Dismiss, this Court anticipated the
argument which Plaintiff now makes in the Motion for
This Court rejected that argument in the 3/9/17
The 3/9/17 Order noted that, in this Court’s February 29,
2016 order ruling on Defendants’ first motion to dismiss
(“2/29/16 Order”),2 [dkt. no. 21,]:
[T]his Court dismissed Plaintiff’s discrimination
claim and harassment/retaliation claim because the
Complaint did not allege that he exhausted his
administrative remedies. This Court gave him
leave to amend the claims to cure the defect.
[2/29/16 Order at 12-13.] Specifically, this
Court stated Plaintiff had “to cure the defect in
his harassment/retaliation claim and his
discrimination claim by alleging that he exhausted
his administrative remedies before he filed this
action.” [Id. at 13 (emphasis added).]
[3/9/17 Order at 8.]
This Court noted that: the Amended
Complaint did not address whether Plaintiff exhausted his
administrative remedies before filing the original Complaint;
Plaintiff stated in a filing submitted to the magistrate judge
that DoL was investigating Defendants, and Plaintiff was planning
to seek leave to amend his complaint to incorporate DoL’s
findings; and Plaintiff believed that this Court “‘gave [him]
time to exhaust his administrative procedures with the outside
[Id. at 8-9 (quoting Pltf.’s Scheduling Conference
Statement, filed 11/15/16 (dkt. no. 49), at 1).]
expressly stated that Plaintiff was “mistaken . . . that
attempting to exhaust his administrative remedies during the
pendency of this action would cure the defect in his
On August 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed his “Verifiable Qui
Tam Complaint for Employment Discrimination, Harassment
Retroactive Back Pay, Fraud” (“Complaint”). [Dkt. no. 1.] On
January 12, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
original Complaint (“First Motion to Dismiss”). [Dkt. no. 18.]
As with the Second Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff did not file a
response to the First Motion to Dismiss. See 2/29/16 Order at 1.
harassment/retaliation claim and his discrimination claim.”
at 8 (emphasis added).]
This Court concluded that Plaintiff had
failed to cure the exhaustion defect in his discrimination claim
and his harassment/retaliation claim and that he could not cure
the defect through further amendment.
[Id. at 9.]
Court has already rejected the argument that Plaintiff raises in
the Motion for Reconsideration, and Plaintiff’s mere disagreement
with this Court’s ruling is not grounds for reconsideration of
the 3/9/17 Order.
See Davis, 2014 WL 2468348, at *3 n.4
This Court therefore CONCLUDES that Plaintiff has not
established an intervening change in the controlling law, the
discovery of newly available evidence, or that reconsideration is
necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
See Tierney, 2013 WL 1858585, at *1.
Plaintiff has not
established any ground that warrants reconsideration of the
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s “Motion for
Reconsideration of the Judges Order and Allowing the Plaintiff to
Amend His Complaint with the Findings of the U.S. Dept of Labor
Reports,” filed March 23, 2017, is HEREBY DENIED.
There being no
remaining claims in this case, this Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s
Office to close the case immediately.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, March 28, 2017.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
JAMES J. NAVAJA VS. HONOLULU ACADEMY OF ARTS, ET AL; CIVIL 1500344 LEK-RLP; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGES ORDER AND ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO
AMEND HIS COMPLIANT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE U.S. DEPT OF LABOR
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?