Yoshikawa v. City and County of Honolulu
| Hitoshi Yoshikawa |
| City and County of Honolulu and Troy K. Seguirant |
| 1:2018cv00162 |
| May 3, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| Honolulu |
| KEVIN S.C. CHANG |
| DERRICK K. WATSON |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Both |
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
228
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART (1) DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND (2) DEFENDANT TROY K. SEGUIRANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPL AINT re 205 , 206 - Signed by JUDGE JILL A. OTAKE on 5/27/2021. For the reasons set forth above, The City's Motion [ECF No. 205] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) the Motion is denied with r espect to the procedural due process claim against the City in Counts One and Two; and (2) the Section 1981 claim in Count One, the equal protection claims in Counts One and Two, the ratification or approval claim in Count Two, the inaction or del ay claim in Count Two, and the entirety of Count Four are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the City. Seguirant's Motion [ECF No. 206] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) the Motion is DENIED with respect to the Section 1981 claim against Seguirant in Count One; and (2) the procedural due process and equal protection claims in Count One and Two against Seguirant are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (emt, )
|
|
Filing
202
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF HITOSHI YOSHIKAWA'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT TROY K. SEGUIRANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF HITOSHI YOSHIKAWA'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED ON 1/6/2021 re 187 - Signed by JUDGE JILL A. OTAKE on 2/3/2021. (emt, )
|
|
Filing
179
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT TROY K. SEGUIRANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF& #039;S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF HITOSHI YOSHIKAWA'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 121 , 122 , 130 - Signed by JUDGE JILL A. OTAKE on 1/6/2021. For the reasons set forth above, Seguirant's Motion [ECF No. 121] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) all official capacity claims and the substantive due process claim are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and (2) the Section 1981, procedural due process, and equal p rotection claims in Count One against Seguirant in his individual capacity are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The City's Motion [ECF No. 122] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) the negligent training claim in Count F ive and Count Seven are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (2) Count Six is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and (3) Counts Two, Three, and Four, and the balance of Count Five are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Given the dismissal of Count Six, Plaintiff& #039;s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 130] is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by February 5, 2021 curing the defects identified in this Order. Plaintiff may not add parties or claims without obtaining leave of court. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action. (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.
