William Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC

FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 09 2017
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM R. HANCOCK, individually No. 14-15233
and as Trustee of Hancock and Company,
Inc. Profit Sharing Trust, under trust D.C. No.
instrument April 3, 1993, 1:13-cv-00198-DKW-RLP
District of Hawaii,
Plaintiff-Appellant, Honolulu
v.
ORDER
KULANA PARTNERS, LLC, a Hawaii
Limited Liability Company; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The mandate issued in this case is hereby RECALLED. We WITHDRAW
our previous memorandum disposition filed on November 7, 2016 (Dkt. 37) and
replace it with the one filed concurrently with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 09 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM R. HANCOCK, individually No. 14-15233
and as Trustee of Hancock and Company,
Inc. Profit Sharing Trust, under trust D.C. No.
instrument April 3, 1993, 1:13-cv-00198-DKW-RLP
Plaintiff-Appellant,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
KULANA PARTNERS, LLC, a Hawaii
Limited Liability Company; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 20, 2016
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
William R. Hancock appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and trespass and ejectment. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having reviewed the relevant
materials, we believe that a clarification of Hawaii law would resolve this case.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court with
instructions 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?
We are mindful that our 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].” Cornhusker Cas. Ins. Co.
v. Kachman, 514 F.3d 982, 989 (9th Cir. 2008).
VACATED AND REMANDED.
2