State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Hoopono-Services for the Blind

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Hawaii District Court State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Hoopono-Services for the Blind

State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Hoopono-Services for the Blind

Plaintiff:	State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Hoopono-Services for the Blind
Defendant:	Army, Department of, United States and United States Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration
Case Number:	1:2017cv00430
Filed:	August 28, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of Hawaii
Office:	Hawaii Office
County:	Honolulu
Presiding Judge:	KEVIN S.C. CHANG
Presiding Judge:	LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI
Nature of Suit:	Arbitration
Cause of Action:	05 U.S.C. § 702
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
May 27, 2021	Filing 107 ORDER: GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL; AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART THE ARBITRATION PANEL'S JULY 24, 20217 DECISION; AND REMANDING THE CASE TO THE ARBITRATION PANEL re 1 , 101 - Signed by JUDGE LESL IE E. KOBAYASHI on 5/27/2021. For the foregoing reasons, Hoopono's appeal from the arbitration panel's July 24, 2017 Decision, filed August 28, 2017, is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and the Decisi on is HEREBY AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART. The Appeal is GRANTED, insofar as: the arbitration panel's Decision is VACATED as to the panel's ruling that the Army was not required to comply with the § 107(b) review requirement in this case; judgment in the instant Appeal will be entered in favor of Ho'opono; and the case is REMANDED to the arbitration panel to enter a decision consistent with this Order. The Appeal is DENIED in all other respects. There being no remaining issues in the instant Appeal, the Clerk's Office is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Ho'opono, pursuant to this Order, and to close the case immediately. (emt, )
October 20, 2017	Filing 27 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER re 5 Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order.. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 10/20/2017. (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).

Date Filed

Document Text

May 27, 2021

Filing 107 ORDER: GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL; AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART THE ARBITRATION PANEL'S JULY 24, 20217 DECISION; AND REMANDING THE CASE TO THE ARBITRATION PANEL re 1 , 101 - Signed by JUDGE LESL IE E. KOBAYASHI on 5/27/2021. For the foregoing reasons, Hoopono's appeal from the arbitration panel's July 24, 2017 Decision, filed August 28, 2017, is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and the Decisi on is HEREBY AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART. The Appeal is GRANTED, insofar as: the arbitration panel's Decision is VACATED as to the panel's ruling that the Army was not required to comply with the § 107(b) review requirement in this case; judgment in the instant Appeal will be entered in favor of Ho'opono; and the case is REMANDED to the arbitration panel to enter a decision consistent with this Order. The Appeal is DENIED in all other respects. There being no remaining issues in the instant Appeal, the Clerk's Office is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Ho'opono, pursuant to this Order, and to close the case immediately. (emt, )

October 20, 2017

Filing 27 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER re 5 Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order.. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 10/20/2017. (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).

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: State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Hoopono-Services for the Blind
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Hoopono-Services for the Blind
Represented By:	Lori H. Wada
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: Army, Department of, United States
Represented By:	Edric Ming-Kai Ching
Represented By:	Thomas A. Helper
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: United States Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration
Represented By:	Edric Ming-Kai Ching
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?