Begley v. County of Kauai, Kauai Police Department

Filing 520

ORDER Denying Defendant's Motion For Reconsideration Regarding Order Denying Defendant Michael Contrades' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint Filed Herein on August 31, 2018 re 443 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 3/7/2019. (cib)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MARK N. BEGLEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COUNTY OF KAUAI, KAUAI POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, DARRYL PERRY, ROY )
ASHER, MICHAEL CONTRADES AND )
DOE DEFENDANTS 16-100,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

CIVIL 16-00350 LEK-KJM

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
REGARDING ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT MICHAEL CONTRADES’
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT FILED HEREIN ON AUGUST 31, 2018
On September 14, 2018, Defendant Michael Contrades, in
his individual capacity (“Contrades”), filed his Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint Filed Herein on
August 31, 2018 (“Motion to Dismiss”).

[Dkt. no. 360.]

On

December 27, 2018, this Court issued an order that, inter alia,
denied the Motion to Dismiss (“12/27/18 Order”).
no. 434.1]

[Dkt.

Before the Court is Contrades’s motion for

reconsideration of the 12/27/18 Order (“Motion for
Reconsideration”), filed on January 10, 2019.

[Dkt. no. 443.]

Plaintiff Mark N. Begley (“Plaintiff”) filed his memorandum in

1

The 12/27/18 Order is also available at 2018 WL 6816045.

opposition on January 24, 2019, and Contrades filed his reply on
February 6, 2019.

[Dkt. nos. 448, 460.]

The Court has

considered the Motion for Reconsideration as a non-hearing
matter pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice
for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
(“Local Rules”).

Contrades’s Motion for Reconsideration is

hereby denied for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
The relevant factual and procedural background of this
case is set forth in the 12/27/18 Order, which denied
Contrades’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.

Plaintiff’s

claims against Contrades are: aiding and abetting, inciting,
compelling, or coercing retaliation, under Haw. Rev. Stat.
Chapter 368 and § 378-2(a)(3) (“Count II”); and intentional
infliction of emotional distress (“IIED” and “Count IV”).
[Third Amended Complaint, filed 8/31/18 (dkt. no. 349), at
¶¶ 133-36, 142-44.]

The denial of Contrades’s Motion to Dismiss

was based on numerous rulings, only one of which is at issue in
the Motion for Reconsideration.

This Court ruled that, as to

Count II and Count IV, the Third Amended Complaint’s factual
allegations – in particular paragraphs 122.f, r, t, v, w, x –
stated a plausible basis to support a finding that Contrades was
not entitled to qualified immunity/conditional privilege because

2

Contrades acted with malice.

12/27/18 Order, 2018 WL 6816045,

at *4-6.
In the Motion for Reconsideration, Contrades argues
reconsideration is necessary because: 1) the Third Amended
Complaint does not allege Contrades acted with a state of mind
or an intent that rose to the level of malice; and
2) Contrades’s email communication described in the cited
portions of paragraph 122 cannot support a finding of malice
because Contrades’s actions related to those emails were
motivated by a proper purpose.
DISCUSSION
Contrades brings his Motion for Reconsideration
pursuant to Local Rule 60.1(c), which states: “Motions for
reconsideration of interlocutory orders may be brought only upon
the following grounds . . . (c) Manifest error of law or fact.”
This Court has previously stated a motion for reconsideration
“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). . . . “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 omitted).

3

Heu v. Waldorf=Astoria Mgmt. LLC, CIVIL 17-00365 LEK-RLP, 2018
WL 2011905, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Apr. 30, 2018) (alteration in Heu)
(some citations omitted).
The arguments Contrades makes in the Motion for
Reconsideration – that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient
factual allegations regarding malice and that Contrades’s
actions had a proper purpose – were raised in connection with
the Motion to Dismiss and considered by this Court.

See, e.g.,

Mem. in Supp. of Motion to Dismiss at 12 (“There is nothing in
the Third Amended Complaint to indicate that Contrades’ actions
were not within the parameters of his duties as Deputy Chief.”);
id. at 24-25 (arguing Plaintiff “cannot, as a matter of law,
state any viable claim against Contrades that demonstrate [sic]
malice that resulted in an adverse employment action”).
Contrades merely disagrees with this Court’s analysis of the
factual allegations in the Third Amended Complaint and with this
Court’s conclusions regarding the legal issues presented in the
Motion to Dismiss.

Contrades’s disagreement does not constitute

a ground for reconsideration of the 12/27/18 Order.
2014 WL 2468348, at *3 n.4.

See Davis,

Further, to the extent that

Contrades argues other evidence shows he did not act with malice
and/or his actions had a legitimate purpose, nothing in the
12/27/18 Order prevents him from revisiting the qualified
immunity/conditional privilege issue in a motion for summary
4

judgment and/or at trial.

Contrades has failed to present any

ground that warrants reconsideration of the 12/27/18 Order.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Contrades’s January 10,
2019 Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Order Denying
Defendant Michael Contrades’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint Filed Herein on August 31, 2018 is HEREBY
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAI`I, March 7, 2019.

MARK N. BEGLEY VS. COUNTY OF KAUAI, ET AL.; CV 16-00350 LEK-KJM;
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT MICHAEL CONTRADES' MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED HEREIN ON AUGUST 31,
2018

5