Smythe et al v. Saffeels et al
Filing
24
EO: COURT ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURTS MAY 19, 2021 ENTERING ORDER. (JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI) (afe)
MINUTE ORDER
CASE NUMBER:
CIVIL NO. 21-00056 LEK-RT
CASE NAME:
Ronda Smythe et al., vs. Brandon Saffeels et al.,
JUDGE:
Leslie E. Kobayashi
DATE:
06/03/2021
COURT ACTION: EO: COURT ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT’S MAY 19, 2021 ENTERING ORDER
On May 17, 2021, Defendant County of Maui (“the County”) filed its Motion to
Dismiss and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive
Relief and Damages [ECF 16] (“Motion to Dismiss”). [Dkt. no. 17.] The Motion to
Dismiss was denied without a hearing and without further briefing. [Minute Order - EO:
Court Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant County of Maui’s Motion to
Dismiss and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive
Relief and Damages [ECF 16], filed 5/19/21 (dkt. no. 18) (“5/19/21 EO”).] On June 2,
2021, the County filed a motion for reconsideration of the 5/19/21 EO (“Motion for
Reconsideration”). [Dkt. no. 22.] The Motion for Reconsideration is suitable for
disposition without a hearing and without further briefing. See Local Rule LR7.1(d)
(listing motions for reconsideration among the motions that “shall be decided without a
hearing”); Local Rule LR60.1 (stating no memorandum in opposition to a motion for
reconsideration and no reply in support of a motion for reconsideration “shall be filed
unless directed by the court”).
“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; and/or (c) Manifest error of law or fact.” Local Rule LR60.1.
The County argues there are manifest errors in the 5/19/21 EO because this Court did not
address the Motion to Dismiss’s arguments that: all of Plaintiffs Ronda Smythe and
Liana P. Kanno’s (“Plaintiffs”) state law claims must be dismissed because Plaintiffs did
not comply with Haw. Rev. Stat. § 46-72; and all of Plaintiffs’ federal law claims must be
dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to bring those claims within the applicable statute of
limitations. The County’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED because there are
factual issues related to those arguments that are more appropriately addressed in a
motion for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Submitted by: Agalelei Elkington, Courtroom Manager
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?