Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
TAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Orly's Reply to Opposition to Amended Motion

TAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Orly's Reply to Opposition to Amended Motion

Ratings: (0)|Views: 45 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
From Orly's Site - Of course, there was no Opposition filed to the Amended Motion, as it had not been filed, but Orly responds to one anyway...
From Orly's Site - Of course, there was no Opposition filed to the Amended Motion, as it had not been filed, but Orly responds to one anyway...

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Dec 07, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/08/2011

pdf

text

original

 
TAITZ V FUDDY, ONAKA REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688Ph 949-683-5411 fax949-766-7603Orly.Taitz@gmail.com 
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU, HAWAII
) PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUSDR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ ) REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF RECORDSPLAINTIFF UNDER UNIFIED INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT) STATUTE 92F, STATE OF HAWAIIV ) CIVIL 11-1-1731-08) HON. RHONDA NISHIMURA PRESIDINGLORETTA FUDDY IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ) FILED AUGUST 10, 2011DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ) AGENCY APPEALSTATE OF HAWAII, ) DATE OF HEARING:DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA, )
NOVEMBER 30, 2011, 10:00 AM
)
Reply to opposition to Amended
 IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
)EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REHEARING
 THE REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ) MOTION TO STAY FINAL ORDER PENDINGSTATE OF HAWAII ) REHEARING
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (“Taitz”) hereby replies to Defendants‟ Opposition to Motion
for Rehearing/Reconsideration as follows:Taitz filed an
amended
motion for reconsideration. Amended motion was filedwith the court and served upon the defendants through their attorney. Defendants
never filed an opposition to the amended mo
tion and as such Plaintiff isrespectfully asks this court to find that the
defendants conceded to the pointsbrought forward in the amended motion and are not opposing it, as suchinspection of the document in question should be granted.
In case the court is willing to entertain the defendants response to the initialmotion, Plaintiff replies as follows:
 
TAITZ V FUDDY, ONAKA REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 2
As noted in Defendants‟ Opposition, the court retains the inherent power to
reconsider an earlier ruling at any time prior to the entry of final judgment.According to
Cho v. State,
115 Haw. 373, 384, 168, P.3d 17, 28 (2007),
“it is
axiomatic that the trial courts retain inherent authority to revise interim orinterlocutory orders any time before entry of judgment. See
 Abada v. CharlesSchwab & Co.
, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1102 (S.D. Cal. 2000). Interlocutory ordersand rulings made pre-trial may be considered and reversed for any reason the trial judge deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an interveningchange in or clarification of controlling law at any time prior to final judgmentwhen the initial order wa
s clearly erroneous or would work manifest injustice.”
 The Court in
Cho
 
also stated, “We agree with the State to the extent that the
trial court has inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders. See, e.g.,
Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc.
, 936 F.2d 1462, 1469 (4th
Cir.1991) (“An interlocutory order is subject to reconsideration at any time prior tothe entry of a final judgment.”); b); “[r]ather, the motion must be considered to bedirected to the court‟s Peterson v. Lindner, 765 F
.2d 698, 704 (7th Cir.1985)(motions for reconsideration of interlocutory order cannot be properlycharacterized as a motion under FRCP Rule 60(inherent power to modify or
rescind interlocutory orders prior to final judgment”) (citation omitted). “Of 
course, if the order [is] interlocutory, [the trial court] ha[s] the power to reconsider
 
TAITZ V FUDDY, ONAKA REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 3
it at any time before final judgment.” Id. (citation omitted).
Cho v. State
, 115 Haw.373, 384, 168 P.3d 17, 28 (2007).
Moreover, Hawaii law is clear that, “The trial court‟s ruling on a motion for 
reconsideration is reviewed under the
abuse of discretion standard
.”
 Ass'n of  Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co.
, 100 Hawai„i 97, 110, 58
P.3d 608, 621 (2002) (citation omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial
court has “
clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules orprinciples of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.
 Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co.
, 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26(1992).The moving party asserts both clear error and manifest injustice occurred in
this instance. This is not an attempt to simply “relitigate” the matters presented at
the hearing on the original motion. Instead, it is a request for reconsideration basedon the principals of new facts, new law, clear error and manifest injustice:1.Plaintiff has shown that indeed current action was a properly filed agency appeal.During the October 12, 2011 hearing Defendants claimed that her pleadings do notconstitute agency appeal and that appeal would not be proper under thecircumstances. there is absolute zero substance behind this statement. In hermotion Taitz stated, that after the hearing together with Channel 8 reporter andanother witness she walked to the Health Department and inquired, whether the

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->