Flores v. Turtle Bay Resort et al
ORDER DENYING 18 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 02/24/2017. (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
TURTLE BAY RESORT, MIKE LAIE )
- SECURITY, ALEX - GOLF
MANAGER, ASHLEY - CLUB HOUSE )
REP, TRAVIS JOERGER )
DIRECTOR, STACY - CLUBHOUSE
CIVIL 16-00561 LEK-KSC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On January 26, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Xavier Flores
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”).
[Dkt. no. 18.]
The Court has considered the Motion as a non-
hearing matter pursuant to Rule 7.2(e) of the Local Rules of
Practice of the United States District Court for the District of
After careful consideration of the Motion and the
relevant legal authority, the Court HEREBY DENIES the Motion.
The Motion seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order
Dismissing Amended Complaint With Prejudice and Denying as Moot
the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs, filed on January 6, 2017 (“1/6/17 Order”).
On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Complaint and
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees
or Costs (“Application”).
[Dkt. nos. 1, 2.]
On October 20,
2016, the Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice, and
provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended
complaint (“10/20/16 Order”).
[Dkt. no. 9.]
reserved ruling on the Application.1
The Court also
[10/20/16 Order at 7.]
December 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint.
The 1/16/17 Order explained that
[t]he Amended Complaint does not explain how
Defendants Turtle Bay Resort (“Turtle Bay”) and
six other named defendants (collectively
“Defendants”) allegedly harmed Plaintiff.
Instead, Plaintiff cites the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101,
states that “[m]y disability deals with my lower
back,” and describes an injury that occurred when
he was a New York Fire Department employee.
[Amended Complaint at 3-4.]
[1/6/17 Order at 2-3 (footnotes omitted).]
This Court has previously stated:
In order to obtain reconsideration . . . ,
the 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.
Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment, Motion for Restraining Order, Motion for
Service by the U.S. Marshall [sic], and Motion for a Lawyer.
[Dkt. nos. 3, 4, 5, 6.] The 10/20/16 Order dismissed all of
these motions as moot. [10/20/16 Order at 7.]
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,
The Motion states that the Court should reconsider the
1/6/17 Order because, inter alia, Plaintiff intends to help the
federal government “in re-wording/amend[ing]” various federal
laws, make various agreements, and invest in infrastructure
[Motion at 1-2.]
The Motion does not make any
reference to Turtle Bay or the series of events described in the
Moreover, Plaintiff does not describe a
change in law, new evidence, or a clear error that would make it
proper for the Court to grant the Motion.
The Court FINDS that
Plaintiff has not provided any grounds upon which the Court can
reconsider the 1/6/17 Order, and the Motion is therefore DENIED.
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration, filed on January 26, 2017, is HEREBY DENIED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to enter final judgment and
close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, February 24, 2017.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
XAVIER FLORES VS. TURTLE BAY RESORT, ET AL; CIVIL 16-00561 LEKKSC; ORDER DENYING 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?