Puana v. Kealoha

Filing 255

EO: COURT ORDER: GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE CITYS MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING THE CITYS REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED WORD LIMIT; AND DIRECTING THE CITY TO REFILE ITS REPLY AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS.(JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI) (afe)COURTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the (NEF). Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF)

MINUTE ORDER

CASE NUMBER:

CIVIL NO. 16-00659 LEK-WRP

CASE NAME:

Gerard K. Puana et al., vs. Katherine P. Kealoha et al.,

JUDGE:

Leslie E. Kobayashi

DATE:

10/05/2021

COURT ACTION: EO: COURT ORDER: GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART THE CITY’S MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING THE CITY’S REQUEST FOR
LEAVE TO EXCEED WORD LIMIT; AND DIRECTING THE CITY TO REFILE ITS
REPLY AND CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS
On August 24, 2021, Defendant City and County of Honolulu (“the City”) filed a
Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 207) (“City Motion to
Dismiss”). [Dkt. no. 216.] The City Motion to Dismiss is one of the matters scheduled
for hearing on October 15, 2021, at 9:45 a.m. On September 24, 2021, Plaintiffs Gerard
K. Puana and Ricky L. Hartsell, as Trustee of the Florence M. Puana Trust (“Plaintiffs”),
filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant City and County of Honolulu’s Motion
to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint and Cross-Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. [Dkt. no. 238.] On October 1, 2021, the City filed: a Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, or in Alternative, for an
Extension of Time (“Motion to Strike”); and an Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Exceed
Word Limit for Its Response to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant City
and County of Honolulu’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint and CrossMotion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion for Leave”). [Dkt. nos. 247, 248.]
The Court DENIES the Motion to Strike as to the City’s request to strike the
portion of Plaintiffs’ September 24, 2021 filing that is a motion for partial summary
judgment. The Court, however, GRANTS the Motion to Strike as to the City’s request
for an extension of time. Because a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment
are analyzed under different standards, the Court will not consider Plaintiffs’ motion for
partial summary judgment at the motion to dismiss stage. The parties are DIRECTED to
meet and confer, and to inform the Court in a letter brief of the parties’ proposed briefing
schedule for Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The letter brief shall be
submitted to this Court by October 20, 2021. The Court will issue a briefing schedule
after it is has reviewed the parties’ proposed schedule.
Moreover, the Court DENIES the City’s Motion for Leave. As the parties will
submit a proposed briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment,

the City need not address that portion of Plaintiffs’ September 24, 2021 filing in its reply
in support of the City Motion to Dismiss. The City’s reply and its concise statement of
facts, filed on October 1, 2021, are therefore STRICKEN. The City is DIRECTED to file
a new version of its reply by October 8, 2021. The new version of the reply must only
address the City Motion to Dismiss, and it must comply with the page/word limit set forth
in Local Rule 7.4(c). The hearing on the City’s Motion to Dismiss will proceed as
scheduled on October 15, 2021. The City is DIRECTED to refile its concise statement
of facts according to the briefing schedule that will be established for Plaintiffs’ motion
for partial summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Submitted by: Agalelei Elkington, Courtroom Manager