Christopher Zyda, et al v. Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, et al
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYINGPLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REMAND re 42 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 06/30/2017. (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).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
CHRISTOPHER ZYDA, On Behalf
of Himself and All Others
FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND
RESORTS FOUR SEASONS HOLDINGS
INC.; FOUR SEASONS HUALALAI
RESORT; HUALALAI RESIDENTIAL,
LLC (dba HUALALAI REALTY);
HUALALAI INVESTORS, LLC;
KAUPULEHU MAKAI VENTURE;
HUALALAI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY;
HUALALAI VILLAS & HOMES;
HUALALAI INVESTORS, LLC;
HUALALAI RENTAL MANAGEMENT,
LLC; and DOES 1-100,
CIVIL 16-00591 LEK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REMAND
On March 28, 2017, this Court issued its Order Denying
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand (“3/28/17 Order” and “Motion for
[Dkt. nos. 11 (Motion for Remand), 36 (3/28/17
Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher Zyda’s, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (“Zyda” and
collectively “Plaintiffs”), motion for reconsideration of the
3/28/17 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”), filed on April 11,
[Dkt. no. 42.]
Defendants Four Seasons Hotels Ltd., Four
The 3/28/17 Order is also available at 2017 WL 1157844.
Seasons Holdings, Inc., Hualalai Investors, LLC, Hualalai
Residential, LLC, and Hualalai Rental Management, LLC
(collectively “Four Seasons” or “Defendants”) filed their
memorandum in opposition on April 25, 2017, and Plaintiffs filed
their reply on May 9, 2017.
[Dkt. nos. 45, 51.]
The Court finds
this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing 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
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied
for the reasons set forth below.
The relevant background is set forth in the 3/28/17
Order, and this Court will only repeat the background that is
relevant to the instant motion.
On November 1, 2016, Defendants filed their Notice of
Removal of Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1453(b) (“Notice of Removal”), removing the instant case from
the State of Hawai`i Circuit Court of the Third Circuit to this
Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Remand on
November 14, 2016, arguing that Defendants did not timely file
the Notice of Removal.
In the 3/28/17 Order, this Court
concluded that the Notice of Removal was timely because it was
filed within thirty days of Four Seasons’ ability to ascertain
that the amount in controversy exceeded the Class Action Fairness
Act’s (“CAFA”) five-million-dollar requirement.
2017 WL 1157844,
In the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs argue
that this Court erred in denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand
because Defendants were aware that the amount in controversy was
over five million dollars in light of Plaintiffs’ demand for
rescission in their October 14, 2015 amended complaint;2 and
Defendants knew the value of the properties that would be subject
to rescission exceeded five million dollars.
that, because Defendants were aware of the demand for rescission
on October 14, 2015, the thirty-day removal period lapsed under
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) before Defendants filed their Notice of
Removal on November 1, 2016.
Plaintiffs therefore contend that
removal was improper.
This Court has previously stated that a motion for
“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.
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action
Complaint for Damages Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Amended
Complaint”) in state court. [Notice of Removal, Decl. of William
Meheula, Exh. 2 (Amended Complaint).]
Hawai`i 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,
Local Rule 60.1 states, in relevant part:
Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory
orders may be brought only upon the following
(a) Discovery of new material facts not
Intervening change in law;
Manifest error of law or fact.
In the instant Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs
argue that this Court should reconsider the 3/28/17 Order and
grant the Motion to Remand under Local Rule 60.1(c).
first time, Plaintiffs argue that Robert Kildow, Esq.’s
deposition testimony indicates that Mr. Kildow – Four Seasons’
in-house counsel and real estate broker – was aware of the value
of the properties, and therefore Four Seasons knew the amount in
controversy met the jurisdictional requirement.3
although Plaintiffs were aware of Mr. Kildow’s testimony when
An excerpt of the transcript of Mr. Kildow’s October 5,
2016 deposition is attached to the Motion for Reconsideration as
Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Counsel.
they filed the Motion for Remand, the Motion for Remand neither
raised this argument nor included the portions of Mr. Kildow’s
deposition transcript that they cite in the Motion for
This district court has stated: “A
reconsideration motion may not be used to raise arguments or
present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably
have been raised earlier in the litigation.”
Barnes v. Sea Haw.
Rafting, LLC., 16 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1183-84 (D. Hawai`i 2014)
(emphasis added) (citing Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945
(9th Cir. 2003); White v. Sabatino, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276–77
(D. Hawai`i 2006)).
Plaintiffs do not present newly available evidence.
Rather, Plaintiffs merely raise arguments and evidence that they
could have raised in their Motion for Remand.
Further, the argument that Plaintiffs raise in the
Motion for Reconsideration is similar to the arguments in their
Motion for Remand.
This Court acknowledged and took into account
Plaintiffs’ demand for rescission in the 3/28/17 Order, and this
Court determined that, even in light of the demand for
rescission, Plaintiffs did not provide adequate notice for
Defendants to determine that the amount in controversy exceeded
five million dollars.
2017 WL 1157844, at *3-4.
In fact, Plaintiffs attached other portions of
Mr. Kildow’s deposition testimony to their Motion for Remand.
[Motion for Remand, Decl. of Counsel, Exh. 10.]
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration merely disagrees
with the analysis in the 3/28/17 Order of the effect of the
demand for rescission, and Plaintiffs’ disagreement with this
Court’s analysis is not grounds for reconsideration of the order.
See Davis, 2014 WL 2468348, at *3 n.4.
Plaintiffs have not
presented any ground that warrants reconsideration of the 3/28/17
On the basis of the foregoing, Zyda’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the March 28, 2017 Order Denying Plaintiffs’
Motion for Remand, filed on April 11, 2017, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, June 30, 2017.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
CHRISTOPHER ZYDA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED VS. FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS, ET AL; ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REMAND
In light of this Court’s ruling, it does not reach
Defendants’ argument that a plaintiff’s demand for rescission
does not provide notice that the amount in controversy meets the
jurisdictional requirement because rescission damages are
measured in a variety of ways.
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?