Kepilino v. State of Hawaii, Department of Transporation et al
Plaintiff: Jessica L. Kepilino
Defendant: Doe Corporations 1-10, State of Hawaii, Department of Transporation, Glenn Okimoto, John Does 1-5, Jane Does 1-5 and Doe Government Agencies 1-5
Case Number: 1:2012cv00066
Filed: January 31, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Hawaii
Office: Hawaii Office
County: Honolulu
Presiding Judge: DAVID ALAN EZRA
Presiding Judge: BARRY M. KURREN
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
October 29, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 91 ORDER STRIKING DECLARATIONS FILED SEPTEMBER 8, 2013; ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION re 65 , 79 , 81 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 10/29/13. "Summary judgment is granted in favor of HDOT on Claim II of the Second Amended Complaint. This order leaves for further adjudication Counts IV and V (section 378-2 claims against Defendants Dau and Livermore), which have been stayed pendin g the Hawaii Supreme Court's issuance of a decision in Lales v. Wholesale Motors Company, 127 Haw. 412, 279 P.3d 77 (Ct. App. 2012) (unpublished), cert. granted, 2012 WL 4801373 (Haw. Oct. 9, 2012). The parties are directed to p romptly inform this court when the Hawaii Supreme Court decides Lales." (emt, )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 were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
June 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 64 ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART, AND STAYING IN PART, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS re 46 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 6/19/13. "The court GRANTS IN PART, DENIES IN PART, an d STAYS IN PART Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Judgment on the pleadings is granted to the HDOT and Okimoto on the ADA claim in Count I. Count II (Title VII retaliation) may proceed only against the HDOT, and is otherwis e dismissed. Counts III (Equal Protection Clause) and VI (ADA retaliation) are dismissed in their entirety. Counts IV and V (section 378-2) are dismissed to the extent the claims are brought against the HDOT. The portions of Counts IV and V brou ght against Dau and Livermore in their individual capacities are stayed pending the outcome of Lales. In summary, this order leaves for further adjudication the portion of Count II against the HDOT that asserts Title VII retaliation relating to Kepilino's testimony on behalf of another Title VII complainant, while staying Counts IV and V (section 378-2 claims) against Dau and Livermore. The parties are directed to inform this court promptly upon the Hawaii Supreme Courts issuance of a decision in Lales." (emt, )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 were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Kepilino v. State of Hawaii, Department of Transporation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Doe Corporations 1-10
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: State of Hawaii, Department of Transporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Glenn Okimoto
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John Does 1-5
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Jane Does 1-5
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Doe Government Agencies 1-5
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jessica L. Kepilino
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?