Hyland v. County of Hawaii et al

Filing 134

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART: (1) DEFENDANT AINAKEA SENIOR RESIDENCES LLLP'S MOTION TO STRIKE; AND (2) DEFENDANT OFFICE OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, COUNTY OF HAWAII'S JOINDER re 116 Motion to Strike re [11 8] Motion for Joinder. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 09/29/2017. Defendant Ainakea Senior Residences LLLP's motion to strike, filed August 14, 2017, is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Moti on to Strike is GRANTED insofar as this Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to STRIKE Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation from the case caption, and the Motion to Strike is DENIED in all other respects. Defendant Office of Housing & Community Development, County of Hawaii's joinder, filed August 15, 2017, is construed as a joinder of simple agreement, and therefore is also GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. (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
LANRIC HYLAND,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
OFFICE OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY )
DEVELOPMENT, ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL 15-00504 LEK-RLP

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART: (1) DEFENDANT
AINAKEA SENIOR RESIDENCES LLLP’S MOTION TO STRIKE;
AND (2) DEFENDANT OFFICE OF HOUSING &
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, COUNTY OF HAWAII’S JOINDER
On July 31, 2017, Plaintiff Lanric Hyland (“Plaintiff”)
filed his “Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief; Damages and Other Appropriate Relief” (“Second
Amended Complaint”).

[Dkt. no. 108.]

Before the Court are:

Defendant Ainakea Senior Residences LLLP’s (“Ainakea”) motion to
strike Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation (“HICDC”)
and Plaintiff’s request for class certification from the Second
Amended Complaint (“Motion to Strike”), filed on August 14, 2017;
and Defendant Office of Housing & Community Development, County
of Hawaii’s (“the County” or “OHCD”) “Substantive Joinder” to the
Motion to Strike (“Joinder”), filed on August 15, 2017.
nos. 116, 118.]

[Dkt.

Plaintiff filed his memorandum in opposition to

the Motion to Strike and the Joinder on September 24, 2017.
[Dkt. no. 128.]

The Court concludes that no reply is necessary.

The Court finds these matters 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”).

The hearing on the Motion to Strike and

the County’s Joinder, currently scheduled for October 16, 2017,
is therefore VACATED.1

Ainakea’s Motion and the County’s Joinder

are hereby granted in part and denied in part for the reasons set
forth below.
DISCUSSION
I.

Joinder
The County calls the Joinder a substantive joinder.

In

addition to agreeing with Ainakea’s request for relief, the
Joinder states, “insofar as Plaintiff purports to name any County
of Hawai`i defendants (other than OHCD), such as Mayor Harry Kim
or Director Neil Gyotaku, those parties should also be stricken
and/or the claims against them dismissed.”

[Joinder at 2.]

“‘Substantive joinder’ means a joinder based on a
memorandum supplementing the motion . . . joined in.”
Rule LR7.9.

Local

Because the County did not attach a memorandum to

the Joinder, the Joinder is not a substantive joinder.

1

It is

This Order does not affect the County’s motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”), filed on
August 10, 2017, and the joinders thereto (“Dismissal Joinders”).
[Dkt. nos. 110, 112, 114.] The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss
and the Dismissal Joinders will proceed as scheduled on
October 16, 2017, at 9:45 a.m.
2

merely a “joinder of simple agreement,” see id., representing the
County’s agreement that Ainakea is entitled to the relief
requested in the Motion to Strike.

To the extent the Joinder

seeks relief beyond that requested in the Motion to Strike, the
Joinder is denied.

II.

Motion to Strike
This Court’s June 30, 2017 “Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s
June 9, 2016 Order and August 1, 2016 Order; and Withdrawing this
Court’s March 16, 2017 Order” (“6/30/17 Order”) granted Plaintiff
leave to file a second amended complaint consistent with the
terms of that order.

[Dkt. no. 105.2]

Ainakea asks this Court

to: strike HICDC from the Second Amended Complaint or dismiss all
of Plaintiff’s claims against HICDC; and strike the Second
Amended Complaint’s request for class certification.

Ainakea

argues that the 6/30/17 Order did not grant Plaintiff leave
either to add HICDC as a defendant or to request class
certification.
A.

HICDC
Plaintiff points out that he does not describe HICDC as

a defendant in the Second Amended Complaint, and he does not
assert any claim against it.
2

HICDC is listed within a section

The 6/30/17 Order is also available at 2017 WL 2829595.
3

titled “The Parties and Persona.”
pgs. 12, 14 (emphasis added).]

[Second Amended Complaint at

The Second Amended Complaint

states that Plaintiff “intends to file a Motion for Joinder of
HICDC.”3

[Id. at 14 n.2.]

However, Plaintiff’s counsel

“inadvertently erroneously listed HICDC as one of the Defendants
in the title caption of the case.”

[Mem. in Opp. at 5.]

Plaintiff therefore does not oppose striking HICDC from the case
caption.

[Id.]
In light of Plaintiff’s representations, the Motion to

Strike is granted insofar as this Court directs the Clerk’s
Office to strike HICDC from the case caption.

This ruling has no

effect on the pending Motion to Join HICDC.
B.

Request for Class Certification
Plaintiff describes the case as a class action and

prays for class certification.
pgs. 1, 127.]

[Second Amended Complaint at

Although the 6/30/17 Order did not expressly grant

Plaintiff leave to file a “class action,” it stated that
Plaintiff could pursue the “Representative Claims” because he was
previously denied leave to include those claims because of his
pro se status, and he is now represented by counsel.4

2017 WL

3

Plaintiff filed his Motion to Join Hawaii Island Community
Development Corporation as a Defendant (“Motion to Join HICDC”)
on September 24, 2017. [Dkt. no. 129.] The motion is pending
before the magistrate judge.
4

The 6/30/17 Order defined “the Representative Claims” as
(continued...)
4

2829595, at *6.

Plaintiff’s inclusion of the class allegations

and the prayer for class certification in the Second Amended
Complaint did not violate the 6/30/17 Order.

The Motion to

Strike is denied as to Ainakea’s request to strike the prayer for
class certification.

Of course, Plaintiff must still file a

motion seeking class certification.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Defendant Ainakea Senior
Residences LLLP’s motion to strike, filed August 14, 2017, is
HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

The Motion to Strike

is GRANTED insofar as this Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to
STRIKE Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation from the
case caption, and the Motion to Strike is DENIED in all other
respects.
Defendant Office of Housing & Community Development,
County of Hawaii’s joinder, filed August 15, 2017, is construed
as a joinder of simple agreement, and therefore is also GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

(...continued)
“the claims that [Plaintiff] attempted to bring on behalf of
other current and former [Ainakea Senior Residences (“ASR”)]
residents.” 2017 WL 2829595, at *2.
5

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, September 29, 2017.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

LANRIC HYLAND VS. OFFICE OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, ET
AL; CIVIL 15-00504 LEK-RLP; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART: (1) DEFENDANT AINAKEA SENIOR RESIDENCES LLLP’S MOTION TO
STRIKE; AND (2) DEFENDANT OFFICE OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, COUNTY OF HAWAII’S JOINDER

6