Andrews v. Cnty. of Hawaii

2 Citing cases

  1. Packwood v. Cnty. of Contra Costa

    23-cv-01003-MMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2023)

    With respect to her state law claims against the Bains, which claims are predicated on Packwood's "removal from his home" and "his subsequent detention" (see Amended Complaint ¶ 78), Wood will be directed to show cause why such claims should not be dismissed for lack of standing, as Wood does not assert she was "removed" or placed in "detention" by anyone, let alone as a result of some action on the part of the Bains. See Andrews v. County of Hawaii, 2012 WL 425167, at *8 (D. Haw. February 9, 2012) (holding a plaintiff does not have standing to assert false arrest claim based on arrest of family member). Additionally, Wood will be directed to show cause why her claims against the Bains should not be dismissed for failure to serve, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5),

  2. Moddha Interactive, Inc. v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp.

    92 F. Supp. 3d 982 (D. Haw. 2015)   Cited 8 times
    Dismissing trade secret misappropriation claim that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations with prejudice because granting leave to amend would be futile

    Equitable estoppel involves a circumstance in which a defendant is estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense. Andrews v. Cnty. of Hawaii, Civ. No. 10–00749 DAE–KSC, 2012 WL 425167, at *6 (D.Haw. Feb. 9, 2012). One invoking equitable estoppel “must show that he or she has detrimentally relied on the representation or conduct of the person sought to be estopped, and that such reliance was reasonable.”