Opinion
No. 14-15233
06-09-2017
WILLIAM R. HANCOCK, individually and as Trustee of Hancock and Company, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust, under trust instrument April 3, 1993, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KULANA PARTNERS, LLC, a Hawaii Limited Liability Company; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
District of Hawaii, Honolulu ORDER 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00198-DKW-RLP MEMORANDUM 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. --------
William R. Hancock appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and trespass and ejectment. We 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?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).
2. Whether the recording of a deed provides constructive notice in an action for fraud?
VACATED AND REMANDED.