HANCOCK v. KULANA PARTNERS, LLC

Civil No. 13-00198 dKW-RLP.

WILLIAM R. HANCOCK, individually and as Trustee of HANCOCK AND COMPANY, INC. PROFIT SHARING TRUST, under trust instrument April 3, 1983, Plaintiff, v. KULANA PARTNERS, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE & ESCROW OF HAWAII, INC., a Hawaii corporation, Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Hawai`i.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Petition to Quiet Title
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William R. Hancock, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Joseph Hogan , Attorney at Law.

Profit Sharing Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Joseph Hogan , Attorney at Law.

Kulana Partners, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jade L. Ching , Nakashima Ching LLC.

Fidelity National Title And Escrow of Hawaii Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric B. Levasseur , Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice, Royce R. Remington , Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan H. Engle , Bays Lung Rose & Holma, Steven A. Goldfarb , Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah M. Love , Bays Lung Rose & Holma.


ORDER CERTIFYING QUESTIONS OF LAW

DERRICK K. WATSON, District Judge.

By memorandum dated June 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit directed this Court to certify the following questions to the Hawaii Supreme Court, pursuant to Hawaii Rule of Appellate Procedure 13:

1. Whether a claim relating to a forged deed is subject to the statute of limitations for fraud? 2. Whether the recording of a deed provides constructive notice in an action for fraud?

Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC, No. 14-15233, ECF No. 40-2 at 2 (9th Cir. June 9, 2017).

The Ninth Circuit further instructed that its "framing of these questions does not limit the Hawaii Supreme Court's `consideration of any issues that it determines are relevant' and that `it may in its discretion reformulate the question[s].'" Id. at 2 (quoting Cornhusker Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kachman, 514 F.3d 982, 989 (9th Cir. 2008)).

This matter is stayed pending disposition of the certification request by the Hawaii Supreme Court. In the interim, the Court directs the administrative closure of this case. The case will be reopened by the Clerk of Court upon disposition by the Hawaii Supreme Court, or upon further order of this Court. Such an order reopening the case may be issued sua sponte, or a party may petition for reopening upon a showing of good cause. The administrative closing will not impact, in any manner, any party's rights or obligations or the certified questions, and no filing fee is required to reopen the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases