Arakaki v. Lingle, Civil No. 02-00139 SOM/KSC.

• Decision Date: 09 December 2003
• Docket Number: Civil No. 02-00139 SOM/KSC.
• Citation: 299 F.Supp.2d 1129
• Parties: Earl F. ARAKAKI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Linda LINGLE in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

299 F.Supp.2d 1129 Earl F. ARAKAKI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Linda LINGLE in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 02-00139 SOM/KSC. United States District Court, D. Hawai`i. December 9, 2003.

H. William Burgess, Honolulu, HI, for plaintiff.

Mark Bennett, Charlene M. Aina, Gerard D. Lau, Attorney General, Thomas A. Helper, U.S. Attorney's Office, Sherry P. Broder, Robert G. Klein, McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon, Honolulu, HI, for defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST HHCA/DHHL DEFENDANTS

MOLLWAY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION.

On November 21, 2003, 2003 WL 23177409 this court reiterated that Plaintiffs' limited state taxpayer standing only allows them to challenge the state law underlying the expenditure of state taxes. The court then ruled that Plaintiffs' state taxpayer standing did not provide them with standing to challenge a federal law. Because state taxpayer standing is too limited to permit a challenge to a federal law, the court held that it did not allow Plaintiffs

Page 1130

to challenge the Hawaiian Home Lands lease program, mandated by both state and federal law. See W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 631-32 (9th Cir.1981). On December 8, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of that holding. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration fails to demonstrate a manifest error of law or fact, and it is denied.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

Three grounds justify reconsideration of an order: (i) an intervening change in controlling law, (ii) the availability of new evidence, and (iii) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. All Hawaii Tours v. Polynesian Cultural Ctr., 116 F.R.D. 645, 649 (D.Haw.1987), rev'd in part on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860, 1988 WL 86203 (9th Cir.1988); see also Local Rule 60.1 (allowing reconsideration based on: (a) the discovery of new material facts not previously available; (b) an intervening change in the law; or (c) a manifest error of law or fact). In this motion, Plaintiffs claim that the court's earlier ruling was a manifest error.

III. ANALYSIS.

This court previously ruled that Plaintiffs' limited state taxpayer standing was insufficient to give them standing to challenge a federal law. Relying solely on Green v. Dumke, 480 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1973), Plaintiffs contend that this ruling is a manifest error. Plaintiffs' reliance on Green is...