1250 Oceanside Partners v. Buckles et al
ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re: 1 . Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 5/11/2017. Excerpt of conclusion:&q uot;The court OVERRULES objections from both parties, and ADOPTS the Amended Findings. As recommended by the Bankruptcy Court, a decree of foreclosure in favor of Plaintiff shall enter. Although the Bankruptcy Court recommended 'that the Dist rict Court enter judgment accordingly,' Amended Findings at 2, the court interprets the Bankruptcy Court's recommendation as contemplating further proceedings to implement such a decree of foreclosure, and to further address issues regardin g a deficiency judgment (and at least to address whether the arbitration provisions should not be enforced by virtue of bankruptcy law). [citation omitted]. In this regard, Plaintiff is directed to file a proposed form of a Foreclosure Decree by May 26, 2017. By June 2, 2017, Defendants may file objections, if any, to the proposed form of the Foreclosure Decree. After the Foreclosure Decree is entered, the Clerk of Court shall close the case file and the matter shall be remanded to the Bankr uptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order." WRITTEN ORDER follows hearing held March 3, 2017. Minutes of hearing: ECF no. 21 . 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). All participants are registered to receive electronic notifications.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
In re 1250 OCEANSIDE PARTNERS,
Civ. No. 16-00585 JMS-KSC
ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND FOR
1250 OCEANSIDE, LLC,
ROGER ARNOLD BUCKLES,
Individually and as Trustee of the Roger
Arnold Buckles and Cindy Kiyono
Buckles Revocable Family Trust dated
October 29, 1991; CINDY KIYONO
BUCKLES, individually and as Trustee
of the Roger Arnold Buckles and Cindy
Kiyono Buckles Revocable Family Trust
dated October 29, 1991,
ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND FOR
Defendants Roger Arnold Buckles and Cindy Kiyono Buckles,
individually, and in their capacities as trustees of the Roger Arnold Buckles and
Cindy Kiyono Buckles Revocable Family Trust (collectively, “Defendants” or “the
Buckles”), object under 28 U.S.C. §157(c)(1) to the September 29, 2016 Amended
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Motions to Dismiss and for
Summary Judgment (the “Amended Findings”) issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Hawaii. ECF No. 3. Similarly, Plaintiff 1250 Oceanside,
LLC (“Plaintiff”) has filed “limited objections” to the Amended Findings. ECF
No. 6. Plaintiff was formerly known as 1250 Oceanside Partners (“the Debtor”).
Based on the following, the court OVERRULES both sets of
objections, and ADOPTS the Amended Findings. As recommended by the
Bankruptcy Court, a Decree of Foreclosure in favor of Plaintiff shall issue.
Standard of Review
If a bankruptcy court submits proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law under § 157(c), the district court “review[s] de novo those
matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C.
§157(c)(1). “The district judge shall make a de novo review upon the record or,
after additional evidence, of any portion of the bankruptcy judge’s findings of fact
or conclusions of law to which specific written objection has been made in
accordance with this rule.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033(d).
Absent specific objections, the court reviews proposed factual
findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. See, e.g., In re Preston, 516
B.R. 606, 609 (C.D. Cal. 2014). That is, “[t]he district judge may accept the
portions of the findings and recommendation to which the parties have not
objected as long as it is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the
record.” Naehu v. Read, 2017 WL 1162180, at *3 (D. Haw. Mar. 28, 2017)
(citations omitted).1 “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the proposed
findings of fact or conclusions of law, receive further evidence, or recommit the
matter to the bankruptcy judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033(d).
The court thus focuses on the specific objections of the parties. And
because the court -- having carefully reviewed the record -- accepts and adopts the
other (non-objected-to) findings, the court relies on the Amended Findings for
much of the background. In this Order adopting those Findings, the court reiterates
many of the facts as found by the Bankruptcy Court, and explains the procedural
history as necessary to put the issues into context. The parties are familiar with the
Although Naehu evaluated Findings and Recommendations of a Magistrate Judge under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9033(d) “adopts the
de novo review provisions of Rule 72(b).” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033(d) Advisory Committee
Notes. See, e.g., Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609, 619-20 (8th Cir. 2009)
(“[T]he Supreme Court’s observation that [28 U.S.C.] section 636(b)(1) ‘provide[s] for de novo
review only when a party objected to the magistrate’s findings or recommendations,’ Peretz v.
United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939  (1991) (emphasis added), applies equally [to Bankruptcy
extensive history of this case (with an underlying bankruptcy proceeding
consisting of over 1,400 docket entries, and excerpts of record in this court of over
3,000 pages), which the court need not otherwise set forth in this Order.
The Debtor was the developer of Hokuli
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?