Young v. Kraus et al
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 135 Motion For Reconsideration "Verification Plaintiff's Objection To Judge's Order", filed by Christopher Young. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 11/07 /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 November 8, 2017
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MICHAEL M. KRAUS, Owner of
Tree Works Inc., COUNTY OF
HAWAII, POLICE DEPARTMENT,
PATRICK T. KIHARA as a Police )
Officer in the County of
Hawaii, State of Hawaii, JOHN )
DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10,
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE
PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, AND DOE
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10,
CIVIL 15-00383 LEK-KSC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On October 12, 2017, this Court issued the Order
Denying Plaintiff’s Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order
Granting Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff and
the Magistrate Judge’s Entering Order Determining the Amount of
the Sanction (“10/12/17 Order”).
[Dkt. no. 134.]
On October 30,
2017, pro se Plaintiff Christopher Young (“Plaintiff”) filed a
document titled “Verification Plaintiff’s Objection to Judge’s
Order 10/12/2017 Continue to Avoid this Court’s Lack of
Jurisdiction Based on Undisputed Violations in Removal 09/28/2015
Proof of Evidence in the Docket at [Dkt. Nos. 1-135].”
Plaintiff’s filing is CONSTRUED as a motion for
reconsideration of the 10/12/17 Order (“Motion for
The Court has considered the Motion for Reconsideration
as 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 (“Local Rules”).
On October 31, 2017, an
entering order ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration was
issued (“10/31/17 EO Ruling”).1
[Dkt. no. 136.]
Order supersedes the 10/31/17 EO Ruling.
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration is hereby denied for the reasons set forth below.
The magistrate judge’s June 23, 2017 Order Granting
Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff (“6/23/17
Order”) ordered Plaintiff to respond to the Tree Works
Defendants’ requests for answers interrogatories and to reimburse
their attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with the
[Dkt. no. 125.]
The magistrate judge’s
June 29, 2017 entering order (“6/29/17 EO”) set the amount of the
sanction award at $739.50.
[Dkt. no. 129.]
On July 10, 2017,
Plaintiff filed an appeal of both the 6/23/17 Order and the
The 10/31/17 EO Ruling also stated that it was not
necessary for Defendants Michael M. Kraus and Tree Works, Inc.
(collectively “the Tree Works Defendants”) to file a response to
the Motion for Reconsideration.
The 6/23/17 Order addressed the Tree Works Defendants’
Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff, filed on May 1, 2017
(“Motion for Sanctions”). [Dkt. no. 119.]
6/29/17 EO (“Appeal”), [dkt. no. 130,] which was denied in the
The 10/12/17 Order directed Plaintiff to provide
complete and detailed responses to the Tree Works Defendants’
request for answers to interrogatories by November 9, 2017 and to
pay the $739.50 sanction to them, through their counsel, by
November 16, 2017.
[10/12/17 Order at 12.]
In the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues
that the 10/12/17 Order: 1) incorrectly stated that he did not
respond to the Motion for Sanctions; 2) erred in affirming the
6/23/17 Order and the 6/29/17 EO because this case was wrongfully
removed; and 3) violated his rights when it threatened to dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims against the Tree Works Defendants if Plaintiff
failed to respond to the request for answers to interrogatories
because he has already responded to them.
Plaintiff also argues
that dismissing his case would violate his constitutional rights
to a jury trial, equal protection, and due process, as well as
violate the public trust and the public interest.
The standards applicable to a motion for
reconsideration are set forth in the February 17, 2017 Order
Denying the Portion of Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Reconsideration
of this Court’s January 27, 2017 Order and Denying Without
Prejudice the Portion of the Motion Attempting to Appeal the
Order or Rulings Issued by the Magistrate Judge.
[Dkt. no. 111
The standards will only be repeated here where they are
directly relevant to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.
First, Plaintiff argues that he responded to the Tree
Works Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions in docket numbers 19, 20,
80, 93, 101, 109, 110, 112, 114, and 130.
Docket number 130 was
Plaintiff’s Appeal, which was addressed in the 10/12/17 Order.
All of the other documents that Plaintiff cites were filed before
the Motion for Sanctions and therefore were not responses to the
Motion for Sanctions.
The statement in the 10/12/17 Order that
Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion for Sanctions, [10/12/17
Order at 2 n.1,] was not erroneous.
Further, to the extent that
the Motion for Reconsideration contends that the magistrate judge
should have considered Plaintiff’s arguments in those documents
in ruling on the Motion for Sanctions and this Court should have
considered those arguments in ruling on the Appeal, the Motion
for Reconsideration is denied.
The magistrate judge considered
the arguments that Plaintiff presented at the hearing on the
Motion for Sanctions, and this Court considered the arguments
that Plaintiff presented in the Appeal.
Neither the magistrate
judge nor this Court had a obligation to consider arguments that
Plaintiff raised in Plaintiff’s previous filings in this case.
Plaintiff second argument is a challenge to the removal
of this case.
Plaintiff raised arguments in the Appeal
challenging the removal, and they were rejected.
[Id. at 5-6.]
Plaintiff’s arguments in the Motion for Reconsideration about
removal are rejected because Plaintiff’s disagreement with this
Court’s rulings does not warrant reconsideration of the 10/12/17
See Davis v. Abercrombie, Civil No. 11-00144 LEK-BMK,
2014 WL 2468348, at *3 n.4 (D. Hawaii June 2, 2014) (“Mere
disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for
reconsideration.” (citations and internal quotation marks
Plaintiff’s final argument is that the 10/12/17 Order
violated his rights because it ordered him to respond to the Tree
Works Defendants’ request for answers to interrogatories by
November 9, 2017.
Plaintiff contends that he filed his answers
to the interrogatories with the Appeal.
There is an attachment
to the Appeal titled “Interrogatories,” as well as a set of
various documents that Plaintiff labeled “Attachments.”
nos. 130-15, 130-16.]
Even assuming that it was Plaintiff’s
intention for these to serve as his response to the Tree Works
Defendants’ request for answers to interrogatories, attaching
them to the Appeal was not the proper way for Plaintiff to serve
his answers on the Tree Works Defendants.
The requirement in the
10/12/17 Order that Plaintiff provide complete and detailed
responses to the request for answers to interrogatories by
November 9, 2017 did not violate Plaintiff’s rights.
Plaintiff’s rights were not violated when the 10/12/17 Order
cautioned him that his failure to provide complete and detailed
responses will result in additional sanctions, which may include
the dismissal of his claims.
Plaintiff has failed to establish any ground that
warrants reconsideration of the 10/12/17 Order.
See Local Rule
LR60.1 (identifying when “[m]otions for reconsideration of
interlocutory orders may be brought”).
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s
“Verification Plaintiff’s Objection to Judge’s Order 10/12/2017
Continue to Avoid this Court’s Lack of Jurisdiction Based on
Undisputed Violations in Removal 09/28/2015 Proof of Evidence in
the Docket at [Dkt. Nos. 1-135],” which has been construed as a
motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 12, 2017
order, is HEREBY DENIED.
The deadline for Plaintiff to provide complete and
detailed responses to the Tree Works Defendants’ request for
answers to interrogatories remains November 9, 2017, and the
deadline for Plaintiff to pay the $739.50 sanction to the Tree
Works Defendants, through their counsel, remains November 16,
Plaintiff is directed to consult Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)
regarding the service of answers to interrogatories.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, November 7, 2017.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
CHRISTOPHER YOUNG VS. MICHAEL M. KRAUSE, ET AL; CIVIL 15-00383
LEK-KSC; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
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?