Auld-Susott v. Galindo

Filing 159

ORDER Denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration Of This Court's Summary Judgment Order Filed on June 27, 2017 re 130 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 8/10/2018. (cib, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAURYN GALINDO,
)
)
Defendant.
_____________________________ )
EVAN AULD-SUSOTT, as Trustee
for (1) IRREVOCABLE LIEF
INSURANCE TRUST OF JOHN L.
SUSOTT AND KATHRYN C. SUSOTT
UAD 8/17/1988 AS RESTATED,
EXEMPT TRUST FBO DANIEL C.
SUSOTT, and (2) IRREVOCABLE
LIFE INSURANCE TRUST OF JOHN
L. SUSOTT AND KATHRYN C.
SUSOTT UAD 8/17/1988 AS
RESTATED, NON-EXEMPT TRUST
FBO DANIEL C. SUSOTT; and
JOHN L. SUSOTT,

CIVIL 16-00450 LEK-RLP

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THIS COURT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER FILED ON JUNE 27, 2018
On June 27, 2018, this Court issued its Order Granting
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“6/27/18 Order”).
no. 122.1]

[Dkt.

On July 5, 2018, Defendant Lauryn Galindo

(“Defendant”) filed her Motion for Reconsideration of this
Court’s Summary Judgment Order Filed on June 27, 2018 (“Motion
for Reconsideration”).

[Dkt. no. 130.]

On July 19, 2018,

Plaintiffs Evan Auld-Susott (“E. Auld-Susott”), as Trustee for

1

The 6/27/18 Order is also available at 2018 WL 3148095.

(1) Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust of John L. Susott and
Kathryn C. Susott UAD 8/17/1988 as Restated, Exempt Trust FBO
Daniel C. Susott, and (2) Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust of
John L. Susott and Kathryn C. Susott UAD 8/17/1988 as Restated,
Non-Exempt Trust FBO Daniel C. Susott (“Trusts”); and John L.
Susott (“J. Susott” and collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed their
memorandum in opposition, and Defendant filed her reply on
August 2, 2018.

[Dkt. nos. 146, 156.]

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 of the United
States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local
Rules”).

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied

for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
The relevant factual and procedural background of this
matter is set forth in the 6/27/18 Order, which ruled that
Plaintiffs are both creditors of non-party Daniel C. Susott
(“D. Susott”) under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 651C-1, and therefore have
standing to pursue their fraudulent conveyance claim under Haw.
Rev. Stat. § 651C-4.

6/27/18 Order, 2018 WL 3148095, at *6.

The

6/27/18 Order, inter alia, denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed January 31, 2018 (“Motion”).

2

[Dkt. no. 80.]

STANDARD
This Court has previously stated that 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).
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,
2014).

Local Rule 60.1 states, in relevant part: “Motions for

reconsideration of interlocutory orders may be brought only upon
the following grounds: (a) Discovery of new material facts not
previously available; (b) Intervening change in law; [or]
(c) Manifest error of law or fact.”

“Further, ‘reconsideration

may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that a movant
could have presented at the time of the challenged decision.’”
Navaja v. Honolulu Acad. of Arts, CIVIL 15-00344 LEK-RLP, 2017 WL
1158238, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Mar. 28, 2017) (quoting Wereb v. Maui
Cty., 830 F. Supp. 2d 1026, 1031 (D. Hawai`i 2011) (citing Kona
Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.
2000))).
3

DISCUSSION
Defendant first asserts that reconsideration of the
6/27/18 Order is warranted because the Court erred by
misconstruing the Settlement Agreement:

“If it had been

[properly] construed, [E. Auld-Susott] would not be a creditor of
Daniel Susott under the [Hawai`i Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
(‘HUFTA’)].”

[Mem. in Supp. of Motion for Reconsideration at 6.]

Defendant’s conclusory statement merely expresses disagreement
with the 6/27/18 Order, and is not grounds for reconsideration.
Next, Defendant argues the 6/27/18 Order contains a
“manifest error of fact in failing to consider the about $516,000
present value of the annual payments” to D. Susott.
Defendant is mistaken.

[Id. at 7.]

The 6/27/18 Order considered Defendant’s

contention related to the annual payments, and concluded they “do
not destroy Plaintiffs’ creditor status under HUFTA.”
3148095, at *5.

2018 WL

Defendant’s disagreement with this conclusion

does not mean Defendant’s argument was not considered.
Next, Defendant states: “[s]he believes that this Court
made a manifest error of fact in failing to consider the actual
assignment of the default judgment by John Susott to John’s
trust.”

[Mem. in Supp. of Motion for Reconsideration at 7.]

Defendant is mistaken.

See 6/27/18 Order, 2018 WL 3148095, at *5

& n.6 (analyzing this issue and concluding, inter alia, that the
only evidence Defendant submitted was inadmissible).

4

Defendant’s

disagreement with the Court’s conclusion does not mean
Defendant’s argument was not considered.
Next, Defendant argues this Court erred by failing to
consider Hughes v. Tower Park Properties, LLC, 803 F.3d 450 (9th
Cir. 2015).

Defendant asserts Hughes stands for the proposition

that, under California law, “a trust beneficiary has no standing
to sue; only the trustee has such standing,” and is relevant
because “California law could be applicable in this case.”
in Supp. of Motion for Reconsideration at 10.]

[Mem.

The 6/27/18 Order

addressed this issue when it explained that, because “[u]nder
Hawai`i law, a trust beneficiary holds equitable title to trust
property,” and therefore has a claim under HUFTA.

2018 WL

3148095, at *5 n.6 (citation omitted).
Because Defendant has not established either a manifest
error of law in the 6/27/18 Order, or any other grounds for
reconsideration, her request for reconsideration of the 6/27/18
Order is denied.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Defendant
Lauryn Galindo’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s
Summary Judgment Order Filed on June 27, 2018, filed July 5,
2018, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, August 10, 2018.

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

EVAN AULD-SUSOTT, ETC., ET AL. VS. LAURYN GALINDO; CIVIL 16-00450
LEK-RLP; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THIS COURT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER FILED ON JUNE 27, 2018

6