Garcia v. City and County of Honolulu
| Donna Garcia |
| City and County of Honolulu, Ronald J. Lombardi, April Daniels, Arlynn Orpilla, Bonnie McKewen, Harold Uehara, Timothy Slovak, Mikel Frederick, Robert A. Cravalho, Darrien Thornley, Gary Daniels, Thomas Nitta, Leonard Nishimura, Benjamin Moszkowicz, Alan Rodrigues, Keith Vegas, Lanell Arakawa, Brian Blackwell, Nathan Hee, Brandon Lau, Ryan Hironaka, Paul Lee and John and/or Jane Does 1-10 |
| 1:2018cv00100 |
| March 15, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| Honolulu |
| KEVIN S.C. CHANG |
| ALAN C. KAY |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
194
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF GARCIA'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, ECF 192 - Signed by JUDGE ALAN C. KAY on 10/30/2020.Simply put, Plaintiff Garcia's Motion fails to "set forth facts or law of a 'strongly convincing' nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Winterbottom, 2019 WL 7116352, at *1. Because Plaintiff Garcia repeats arguments already analyzed by the Court and because the Court finds no error of law or fact on the merits, Plaintif f Garcia's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 192, is DENIED. COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)(jni)
|
|
Filing
191
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Signed by JUDGE ALAN C. KAY on 9/18/2020.For the foregoing reasons, the Court: GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Paul Lee, ECF No. 131; GRANTS the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendants Lanell Arakawa and Nathan Hee, ECF No. 130; and GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the City and County of Honolulu, ECF No. 134. The Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is warranted as to the claims against Defendants Arakawa and Hee. Litigation in this case has been ongoing for well over two years. Plaintiff Garcia has already filed a first amended complaint, a nd Plaintiff Garcia was further permitted an opportunity to file a second amended complaint following the 05/03/2019 Order ruling on the prior motions to dismiss but opted not to do so. See 05/03/2019 Order at 57. During the more than two years of li tigation, the parties have argued three sets of dispositive motions, conducted discovery, and postponed trial multiple times. Given the procedural history and the advanced stage of litigation in this case, the Court finds dismissal with prejudice is now appropriate. COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants will be served by First Class Mail on 9/21/2020 to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)(jni)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS re: 76 and 77 "For the foregoing reasons, the Officer Defendants' Motion and Defendant Honolulu's Moti on are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. The Officer Defendants' Motion is DENIED with respect to the individual capacity § 1983 equal protection claims and GRANTED with respect to the official capacity § ; 1983 claims and the negligence claims. The official capacity § 1983 claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the negligence claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court declines to address the § 1983 substantive due process claims at this time because the Officer Defendants failed to address those claims in their Motion. 2. Defendant Honolulu's Motion is DENIED with respect to the § 1983 equal protection municipal liability claim and GRANTED with respect to the negl igent supervision claims. The negligent supervision claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court declines to address the § 1983 substantive due process municipal liability claim at this time because Defendant Honolulu failed to address that claim in its Motion. Plaintiff Garcia shall have 30 days to file an amended complaint that attempts to cure the pleading deficiencies identified herein-that is, the deficiencies identified in her negligence claims. If Plaintiff Garcia chooses to file a second amended complaint, she may not assert additional claims absent the Court's permission." Signed by JUDGE ALAN C. KAY on 5/3/2019 (jo)
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES re: 83 "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND AJUDGED that, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Local rule 74.2, the Findings and Recommendation to Deny Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court." Signed by JUDGE ALAN C. KAY on 3/18/2019. (jo)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS re 20 , 25 , 40 , 45 - Signed by JUDGE ALAN C. KAY on 11/16/2018. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to stat e claims upon which relief can be granted as follows: 1. The Court GRANTS WITH PREJUDICE the Officer Defendants' Motion as to all claims except those asserted against Officers Arakawa, Hee, and Lee in their individual capacities, wh ich are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 2. The Court GRANTS WITH PREJUDICE Defendant Cravalho's Motion and Defendant Moszkowicz's Motion as to all claims; and 3. The Court GRANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant Honolulu's Motion as to all claims. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint within thirty days of the entry of this Order or else judgment will be entered against her. (emt, )
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
