Taylor v. City and County of Honolulu

• Court: District Court, D. Hawaii
• Decided: May 23, 2022
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00013
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

CASE NUMBER: CV NO. 22-00013 HG-KJM CASE NAME: Tamara Taylor, individually and on behalf of her minor child, N.B. v. City and County of Honolulu; Hawaii State Department of Education; Christine Neves; Corey Perez; Warren Ford; Terri Runge; HPD Defendants 1-10; and DOE-HI Defendants 1-10 ATTYS FOR PLAS: Jongwook Philip Kim *Mateo Caballero ATTY FOR DEF *Stephen Deutsch Atwell CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU: ATTY FOR DEFS *William R.K. Awong HAWAII STATE DEPT OF EDUC; TERRI RUNGE: JUDGE: Helen Gillmor REPORTER: Gloria Bediamol DATE: 5/23/2022 TIME: 10:30am-11:18am COURT ACTION: EP: DEFENDANT TERRI RUNGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 27); PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REDACT PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT TERRI RUNGE'S REPLY MEMORANDUM (ECF No. 37); and DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU'S MOTION TO SUBSTANTIVELY JOIN DEFENDANT TERRI RUNGE'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REDACT (ECF No. 40). The Court and the attorneys are present via video conference. Discussion held. I. Defendant Runge’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) DEFENDANT TERRI RUNGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Complaint on or before Wednesday, June 8, 2022. The Court will issue a written order. II. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Redact (ECF No. 37) and City and County of Honolulu’s Motion to Join Opposition (ECF No. 40) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REDACT PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT TERRI RUNGE'S REPLY (ECF No. 37) is DENIED. DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU'S MOTION TO SUBSTANTIVELY JOIN DEFENDANT TERRI RUNGE'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION (ECF No. 40) is DENIED. The Court will issue a written order. Defense Counsel stated that they may file possible Motions to Dismiss and Motions for Qualified Immunity. The Court finds that qualified immunity at this stage in the proceedings is premature. Discussion by the attorneys of the allegations at this stage indicate that the Court does not have a sufficient record in front of it to determine whether an individual defendant’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right. Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1235 (9th Cir. 2018); Aguilera v. Molina, 2020 WL 4050873, *5 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2020) (explaining that qualified immunity is a fact-specific analysis which must be analyzed in the specific context of the case and is not appropriate on a disputed, undeveloped record, citing Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2004)). The Parties shall schedule a status conference with Magistrate Judge Mansfield to proceed with discovery. The drawing at issue in this case shall be provided to the Court for in camera review before it may be filed on the Docket or discussed in further pleadings. Any request for in camera review must be accompanied by the filing of an appropriate Motion pursuant to District of Hawaii Local Rules 5.2 and 10.2(f). Submitted by: Rachel Sharpe, Courtroom Manager