Hollandsworth v. City of Honolulu
| Decision Date | 22 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civ. 19-00587 ACK-WRP |
| Parties | KIMBERLY HOLLANDSWORTH, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; LIANNE WOLFRAM; JOSEPH C.K. LUM; JOHN AND/OR JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
KIMBERLY HOLLANDSWORTH, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; LIANNE WOLFRAM; JOSEPH C.K. LUM; JOHN AND/OR JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants.
Civ. No. 19-00587 ACK-WRP
United States District Court, D. Hawaii
October 22, 2021
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT LUM'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 51)
Alan C. Kay Sr. United States District Judge
For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendant Lum's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 51.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are repeated from the Court's prior orders, ECF No. 18 and 29, and are supplemented by the parties' concise statements of fact (“CSFs”), ECF No. 52, 60, and 64.
I. Factual Background
This case relates to a dispute over the ownership of a horse named “Jasper.” ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 13. Plaintiff Kimberly Hollandsworth and Defendant Lianne Wolfram have separate and distinct accounts of the events that transpired.
a. Wolfram and Defendant Lum's Version of Events
On September 28, 2017, Defendant Lianne Wolfram, a Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) officer, told Plaintiff Kimberly Hollandsworth that she was looking for “someone to do a long term full lease” of Jasper. Def. Ex. 2; see also Wolfram Decl. ¶ 7. Wolfram explained that she was “[n]ot getting rid of him” and that Jasper was “not for sale.” Def. Ex. 2. Wolfram communicated to Plaintiff that Jasper:
would come with a contract. Signed by both of us and witnessed by professionals we trust stating that I cannot come take him at my whim. He would be YOURS legally without a sale agreement. This just protects me in any case of neglect where I would have to prove that immediate removal of the horse was necessary due to any type of gross neglect
Id. Wolfram further expressed to Plaintiff that “the contract would state that if I choose to relinquish ownership you would have first right of ownership at no cost.” Id.
On September 30, 2017, Plaintiff agreed to take Jasper pursuant to the terms of a “Free Lease Agreement.” Wolfram Decl. ¶ 12. While verbally discussing the terms of the Free Lease Agreement, Plaintiff requested to take Jasper for a two-week trial period. Id. ¶ 13. The parties agreed to meet on October 4, 2017 to begin the trial period. Id. ¶ 15.
Around this time, Plaintiff asked one of her friends-Visakha Gibbons-for help trailering Jasper from the Helemano Plantation to the Ho'ala Ranch. Gibbons Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3.
Plaintiff told Gibbons that Jasper belonged to Wolfram, and that she was not purchasing Jasper. Id. ¶¶ 3, 4. Plaintiff explained to Gibbons that the property where Wolfram kept Jasper was being sold and that Wolfram had offered to lease Jasper to her. Id. ¶ 4.
On October 4, 2017, Plaintiff and Sakata transferred Jasper to Ho'ala Ranch. Wolfram Decl. ¶ 18. Upon arrival, Wolfram provided Plaintiff with a physical copy of the Free Lease Agreement. Id. Plaintiff said that she would finish reading the agreement and propose any changes prior to the end of her two-week trial period. Id. ¶ 19. As the end of the trial period neared, Wolfram gave Plaintiff an additional one-week trial period following the initial two-week period because of Wolfram's personal travel plans. Id. ¶ 20.
On October 26, 2017, Plaintiff communicated to Wolfram that she did not think Ho'ala Ranch was safe for Jasper so she had moved him. Id. ¶ 22. Wolfram went to see Jasper and observed that he was sharing a pen with another horse, that the area was not free of debris, that it did not provide any shelter, and that the metal fencing had many sharp ends. Id. ¶ 24. Wolfram also noticed that Jasper's rear leg appeared to be injured. Id. ¶ 26. After Wolfram expressed her concerns to Plaintiff, Plaintiff asked Wolfram if she would like Jasper back. Id. ¶ 25.
Troy Sakata, Plaintiff's boyfriend, overheard the conversation between Wolfram and Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 29. After Plaintiff had left, Sakata walked toward Wolfram, placed his face within inches of Wolfram's, and said “So what haole? This not good enough for you? Take him back then. Take him right now. I don't want your damn horse.” Id. ¶ 30. Sakata then headbutted Wolfram, and shouted “This is Waimanolo. I'm from here. I know everyone here. I have boys that can make you disappear and no one will ever find you. You have no idea what I could do it you. And don't think because you're a cop that's going to matter. So you better get your horse now and leave.” Id. Wolfram then left the property. Id. ¶ 31.
The next day, Plaintiff messaged Wolfram to ask if some of the agreement could be “re word[ed].” Def. Ex. 2. When Wolfram didn't respond, Plaintiff then told Wolfram on the morning of October 28, 2017, that she had “thought about it and the agreement ha[d] changed so you can pick him up today.” Id.
That same day, Wolfram contacted Defendant Lum through Facebook Messenger and told him she needed stand-by assistance in order to take back a horse that she had leased to Plaintiff. See Pl. Ex. A. She felt she needed backup because Plaintiff had communicated with an attorney, Sakata had headbutted and threatened her two days earlier, and because Plaintiff's messages “which indicated that she intended to deprive [Wolfram]
of [her] property.” See Wolfram Decl. ¶¶ 37, 39. Defendant Lum responded by agreeing to assist her and telling her to bring documentation with her. See Pl. Ex. A. Later that afternoon, Wolfram called the Kailua Police Station requesting a HPD “stand-by.” Wolfram Decl. ¶ 39. The Kailua Police Station relayed the call to Defendant Lum and one other HPD officer, both of whom met Wolfram at the stables. Lum Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4; Pl. Ex. A.
When Defendant Lum arrived at the Waimanolo Polo Fields, he reviewed Wolfram's proof-of-ownership paperwork, including a veterinary patient chart listing Wolfram as the client, the Free Lease Agreement for Jasper, and several text messages between Wolfram and Plaintiff. Lum Decl. ¶ 5. Wolfram explained to Defendant Lum that she had given Plaintiff the Free Lease Agreement to review, but that it was not finalized. Id. ¶ 7. Wolfram told Defendant Lum that Plaintiff had not liked the Free Lease Agreement's terms and that because they could not agree on the terms, Wolfram wanted Jasper returned. Id.
Wolfram also walked Defendant Lum around the stables and pointed out to him Jasper's injury as well as conditions that she believed were dangerous to the horse. Wolfram Decl. ¶ 42; Pl. Ex A. Defendant Lum also observed that Jasper appeared to be injured because he could not put any pressure on his rear leg. Lum Decl. ¶ 6.
When Plaintiff and Sakata arrived at the scene, an argument ensued. Id. ¶ 8. Defendant Lum asserted that he was in charge and asked Plaintiff whether she could provide any documentation of ownership. Id. ¶¶ 9, 10. In response, Plaintiff showed Defendant Lum her copy of the Free Lease Agreement and told him she also had text messages but did not show him any of those messages. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff told Defendant Lum that Wolfram had gifted Jasper to her, but also that she did not agree with the terms of the Free Lease Agreement. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11.
Around this time, the veterinarian who Wolfram had summoned to look at Jasper's injury arrived to attend to Jasper. Wolfram Decl. ¶ 47. After Dr. Himenes stated he would need access to the paddock area to treat Jasper, Defendant Lum requested that Plaintiff remove the chains. Id. ¶ 48. When Plaintiff refused, Dr. Himenes stated, “[w]ell the horse needs to come out of there one way or another. There's no shelter and he must be treated. If you won't unlock the gate, I'll request the fire department to come and cut the locks.” Id. At this point, Sakata told Plaintiff “just give her back the horse.” Lum Decl. ¶ 12; see also Wolfram Decl. ¶ 49.
After Plaintiff allowed Dr. Himenes to access the paddock, Dr. Himenes gave Jasper an IV and then instructed Wolfram to walk him to start circulation in his leg. Wolfram
Decl. ¶ 49. Based on Sakata's statement and Plaintiff's willingness to unlock the gate, Wolfram believed that Plaintiff had conceded that Wolfram could take Jasper back. Id. ¶ 50. Defendant Lum then stood by as Wolfram loaded Jasper into a trailer. Lum Decl. ¶ 12. Defendant Lum claims that he did not threaten or order Plaintiff to give Jasper to Wolfram. Id. ¶ 13.
Plaintiff completed HPD Form 252 to explain her claim of ownership, Pl. Ex. A, and Defendant Lum referred all parties to the civil courts to resolve any ongoing dispute. Lum Decl. ¶ 16.
b. Plaintiff and Sakata's Version of Events
On the other hand, Plaintiff's position is that Jasper “was given to me by Defendant Wolfram to be mine unless and until I became unable or unwilling to adequately care for him.” Hollandsworth Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff had no interest in leasing Jasper and she “made that abundantly clear” to Wolfram. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff also asserts that there was never any trial period. Id. ¶ 15.
On October 26, 2017, Wolfram visited Jasper and communicated that she was upset that Plaintiff had moved Jasper without consulting her first. Id. ¶ 16. Sakata denies swearing, threatening, headbutting, or assaulting Wolfram in any way. Sakata Decl. ¶¶ 17-20. Sakata testified that he felt
“threatened and intimidated” by Wolfram that day “because she was a police officer and had a gun.” Id. ¶ 21.
Because Wolfram was upset over Jasper's move and adamant about the Free Lease Agreement, Plaintiff offered to return Jasper to her because she had no interest in leasing a horse. Hollandsworth Decl. ¶ 17. Plaintiff then withdrew her offer to return Jasper when Wolfram refused to reimburse her for the costs she had incurred in caring for, treating, and boarding Jasper for the month she had him. Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff then informed Wolfram that she had communicated with an attorney, and that she would wait to hear from Wolfram's attorney. Id.
On October 28, 2017 when Wolfram came to reclaim Jasper, Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial