Young v. Cnty. of Haw., Corp.
| Citation | 947 F.Supp.2d 1087 |
| Decision Date | 22 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 11–00580 ACK–RLP. |
| Parties | Warne Keahi YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF HAWAII, a municipal corporation; Hawaii Island Humane Society S.P.C.A., a non-profit corporation; Donna Whitaker, individually and in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Hawaii Island Humane Society S.P.C.A.; Starr K. Yamada, individually and in her official capacity as a Humane Officer; Michael G.M. Ostendorp; Carroll Cox; Darleen R.S. Dela Cruz; Roberta Kawena Young; Doe Defendants 1–50, Defendants. Roberta Kawena Young, Cross Claimant, v. Michael G.M. Ostendorp, Carroll Cox, and Darleen R.S. Dela Cruz, Cross Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Donald L. Wilkerson, Te–Hina Te–Moana Ickes, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff.
William Fenton Sink, Law Offices of William Fenton Sink, Honolulu, HI, for Cross Claimant.
Eric A. Seitz, A Law Corporation, Brenda E. Morris, Honolulu, HI for Defendants.
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DECLINING IN PART DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF HAWAI'I, HAWAII ISLAND HUMANE SOCIETY S.P.C.A., DONNA WHITAKER, STARR K. YAMADA, AND MICHAEL OSTENDORP'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (2) DECLINING DEFENDANTS ROBERTA KAWENA YOUNG, CARROLL COX, AND DARLEEN DELA CRUZ'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND (3) DECLINING CROSSCLAIM DEFENDANTS MICHAEL OSTENDORP, CARROLL COX, AND DARLEEN DELA CRUZ'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ROBERTA KAWENA YOUNG'S CROSSCLAIM
On September 23, 2011, Plaintiff Warne Keahi Young (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants County of Hawai'i, the Hawaii Island Humane Society S.P.C.A. (“HIHS” or “Humane Society”), Donna Whitaker (individually and in her official capacity as Executive Director of HIHS), Starr K. Yamada (individually and in her official capacity as a HIHS Officer), Michael Ostendorp, Carroll Cox, Darleen Dela Cruz, and Roberta Kawena Young. (ECF No. 1). On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against all Defendants. (ECF No. 8). On March 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).1 (ECF No. 44).
On September 24, 2012, Roberta Kawena Young (“Roberta Young”) filed a Crossclaim against Defendants Ostendorp, Cox, and Dela Cruz. (ECF No. 76–1).
On December 28, 2012, Defendant Roberta Young filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment” as to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 102). On January 8, 2013, Defendant Roberta Young filed a Concise Statement of Facts in Support of her Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 108). Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition and a Concise Statement of Facts on January 10, 2013. (ECF No. 113, 114). Defendant Roberta Young did not file a Reply. ( See generally, ECF Docket).
On December 31, 2012, Defendants County of Hawai'i, HIHS, Donna Whitaker, and Starr Yamada (collectively, “HIHS Defendants”) filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff Warne Keahi Young” (“HIHS MSJ”) and a Concise Statement of Facts in support of their MSJ ( ). (ECF Nos. 98 & 99). The HIHS Defendants also filed an additional exhibit to their MSJ on January 2, 2013. (ECF No. 101). Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the HIHS Defendants' MSJ and a Concise Statement of Facts (“Plntf.'s HIHS CSF”) on January 10, 2013. (ECF No. 109, 114). On February 21, 2013, the HIHS Defendants filed their Reply in support of their MSJ. (ECF No. 139). The HIHS Defendants also filed an errata to their Reply on February 22, 2013. (ECF No. 140). On March 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Concise Statement of Facts. 2 (ECF No. 145). This Court held a hearing on March 7, 2013 regarding the HIHS Defendants' MSJ and Defendant Roberta Young's MSJ. (ECF No. 147).
Also on December 31, 2012, Defendants Ostendorp, Cox, and Dela Cruz each filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Filed on March 30, 2012 and Crossclaim Plaintiff Roberta Young's Crossclaim Filed on September 24, 2012” (“Ostendorp's MSJ,” “Cox's MSJ,” and “Dela Cruz's MSJ” respectively). (ECF No. 103, 104, 105). Ostendorp, Cox, and Dela Cruz also filed a Joint Separate Concise Statement of Facts in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment (“Ostendorp, Cox, and Dela Cruz's JCSF”). (ECF No. 106). On January 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Ostendorp's MSJ, a Memorandum in Opposition to Cox's MSJ, and a Memorandum in Opposition to Dela Cruz's MSJ. (ECF No. 110, 111, 112). Plaintiff also filed a Concise Statement of Facts in response to Defendants' Joint Statement of Facts (“Plntf.'s JCSF”). (ECF No. 114). On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff untimely filed a “Supplemental Concise Statement of Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant[s] Ostendorp, Cox, and Dela Cruz['s] Joint Separate Concise Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment” (“Plntf.'s Supp. JCSF”). 3 (ECF No. 121). On January 28, 2013, Ostendorp, Cox, and Dela Cruz filed a single Reply Memorandum responding to Plaintiff's Oppositions. (ECF No. 124).
On January 29, 2013, eight days past the deadline for opposition memorandums,4 Crossclaim Plaintiff Roberta Young filed an “Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Michael G.M. Ostendorp, Carroll Cox, and Darleen R.S. Dela Cruz'[s] Motion for Summary Judgment.” (ECF No. 129). Crossclaim Plaintiff Roberta Young did not file a Concise Statement of Facts. See ECF Docket. Defendants Ostendorp, Cox, and Dela Cruz did not file a reply. Id. On February 11, 2013, this Court held a hearing regarding Defendants Ostendorp, Cox, and Dela Cruz's Motions for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and Roberta Young's Crossclaim. (ECF No. 133).
In the February 11 and March 7, 2013 hearings, the Court observed that Exhibit 4 of Plaintiff's Supplemental Joint Concise Statement of Facts (ECF No. 121) is a heavily redacted report of the State of Hawaii Department of the Attorney General's (“AG”) investigation regarding an allegedly forged general power of attorney dated September 12, 2009. On April 3, 2013, this Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Response and directed the Hawai'i AG to submit to this Court an unredacted version of the report. ECF No. 152. The Court received an unredacted copy of the Hawaii AG's report on April 23, 2013. (ECF No. 154 & 155). The Court subsequently allowed the parties to view the unredacted version of the AG report and to submit supplemental briefing regarding the report's effect on Defendants' MSJs. (ECF No. 155). Plaintiff timely submitted a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition discussing the effect of the report on Defendant's MSJs. (ECF No. 156).5
This case arises from the seizure of seventeen dogs (“Dogs”) from a residence in Hilo and the subsequent events that resulted in the HIHS's disposal of the Dogs by way of euthanasia or offering the Dogs for adoption. The parties agree on the following basic outline of events, but they disagree regarding the details.
At some point in 2007, Plaintiff was charged with Animal Cruelty in the 2nd Degree under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 711–1109.6See HIHS Defs.' MSJ Ex. A at 4, Ex. F. at 92–93, ECF No. 98. After pleading guilty to the offense of animal neglect and cruelty, Plaintiff subsequently was fined and placed on probation. HIHS Defs.' MSJ Ex. F at 93–94, 106–107, ECF No. 98. As a result of the charges in 2007, Plaintiff was only allowed to have ten dogs at his house. Id. at 106–07.
On September 25, 2009, Yamada, an officer of HIHS, applied for a search warrant in the District Court of the Third Circuit of the State of Hawai'i to search Plaintiff's residence at 42 W. Kahaopea Street, District of South Hilo, HI (“Residence”).7See HIHS Defs.' MSJ Ex. A, ECF No. 98; SAC at 7, ECF No. 44. According to the affidavit that Yamada submitted as part of the application, Yamada had observed two of the Dogs on June 30, August 17, September 18, and September 24, 2009. Id. She observed among other things that (1) the kennels of the two Dogs had feces covering the bottoms of the cages, (2) the Dogs did not have water in their bowls, and (3) one of the Dogs appeared to have a skin infection. Id. The District Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai'i subsequently granted Search Warrant No. 09–001 on September 25, 2009 (“Search Warrant”) based on the search warrant application. Id.
The Search Warrant empowered HIHS officers to search for and seize any abused animals at the Residence, as well as documents establishing the identity of the person who owned or controlled the Residence. HIHS Defs.' MSJ at 3, Ex. B, ECF No. 98.
On the morning of September 29, 2009,8 Yamada executed the search warrant at the Residence and seized the Dogs, pieces of mail belonging to Plaintiff, and a court document in Plaintiff's name. SAC at 8, ECF No. 44. On that same morning of September 29, 2009, Plaintiff traveled to Oahu; he was not at the Residence when HIHS executed the search warrant. Id. On September 30, 2009, a Return of Search Warrant No. 09–001 was filed in the District Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai'i. Id. Yamada attached an inventory statement to the Return of Search Warrant containing a list of the Dogs, pieces of mail, and a court document seized from the Residence. Id. at 9.
Shortly thereafter, on or about October 1, 2009, Plaintiff and Roberta Young 9 met with Defendant Ostendorp, an attorney in private practice, in Honolulu at the Waikiki Yacht Club. Dec. of Ostendorp at 3, ECF No. 139; Plntf.'s Supp. JCSF Ex. 4 at 000020, ECF Nos. 154 & 155. Ostendorp agreed to help Plaintiff and Roberta Young regarding the seizure of the Dogs on September 29, 2009. Id. As a result of the agreement to help Plaintiff and Roberta Young, Ostendorp flew with Defendant Cox and Plaintiff to Hilo. Id. Subsequently, Ostendorp met with HIHS Officer Yamada on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Briggs v. Montgomery
...quotations and citation omitted). The Court also finds the other cases TASC relies upon distinguishable. In Young v. Cty. of Hawaii, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (D. Haw. 2013), aff'd, 578 F. App'x 728 (9th Cir. 2014), the court held that a humane society officer qualified for qualified immunity wh......
-
Burnell v. Soc'y, Case No. 14-cv-05635-JSC
...Though it is not a municipality, courts in the Ninth Circuit apply the Monell analysis to such entities. See Young v. Cnty. of Hawaii, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1114 (D. Haw. 2013) (citing Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1129 (9th Cir. 2012)). 9. The fact that the Marin Humane Socie......
-
Theis v. Yuba Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
...standard," some district courts in the Circuit have at least entertained this type of claim. See, e.g., Young v. Cty. of Hawaii, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1103 (D. Haw. 2013) (granting summary judgment for defendants on Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim, having allowed it to pr......
-
Schwindt v. Hernando Cnty.
...constitute a taking for public use or private benefit. Porter v. DiBlasio, 93 F.3d 301, 310 (7th Cir. 1996); Young v. County of Hawaii, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1103 (D. Haw. 2013). The Amended Complaint does not include any facts suggesting that Plaintiff's dogswere taken for public use or to......