United States v. Albert C. Kobayashi, Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALBERT C. KOBAYASHI, INC.; MARTIN V. COOPER; DESIGN PARTNERS, INC.; MICHAEL N. GOSHI; FRITZ JOHNSON, INC.; FREDERICK M. JOHNSON; NAPILIHAU VILLAGES ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS; NAPILI VILLAS HOA, INC.; AOAO WAILEA FAIRWAY VILLAS; KAHULUI TOWN TERRACE LP; PALEHUA APARTMENTS LP; STANFORD CARR DEVELOPMENT, LLC; SCD WAILEA FAIRWAYS, LLC; SATO & ASSOCIATES, INC.; RONALD M. FUKUMOTO ENGINEERING, INC.; ROJAC CONSTRUCTION INC.; DELTA CONSTRUCTION CORPORPORATION; WARREN S. UNEMORI ENGINEERING, INC.; GYA ARCHITECTS, INC.; AND GOODFELLOW BROS. LLC, Defendants.

CIV. No. 19-00531 LEK-RT

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

February 22, 2023

ORDER DENYING: DEFENDANT ALBERT C. KOBAYASHI, INC.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANT MARTIN V. COOPER'S SUBSTANTIVE JOINDER TO DEFENDANT ALBERT C. KOBAYASHI INC.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF.NO. 369]; AND DEFENDANTS DESIGN PARTNERS, INC. AND MICHAEL N GOSHI'S SUBSTANTIVE JOINDER TO DEFENDANT ALBERT C KOBAYASHI, INC.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. #369]

Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge

On July 29, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross- Claimant Albert C Kobayashi, Inc. (“ACKI” or “ACK”) filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion”). [Dkt. no. 369.] On August 1, 2022 Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Claimant Martin V. Cooper (“Cooper”) filed his Substantive Joinder to Defendant Albert C. Kobayashi, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 369] (“Cooper Joinder”). [Dkt. no. 374.] Also on August 1, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Claimant Design Partners, Inc. (“DPI”) and Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Claimant Michael N. Goshi (“Goshi” and collectively “the DPI Defendants”) filed their Substantive Joinder to Defendant Albert C. Kobayashi, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. #369] (“DPI Defendants Joinder”). [Dkt. no. 376.] Plaintiff United States of America (“the United States”) filed its memorandum in opposition to the Motion, the Cooper Joinder, and the DPI Defendant Joinder (collectively “the Motions”) on October 7, 2022 (“United States Opposition”). [Dkt. no. 411.] Also on October 7, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Defendant Delta Construction Corporation (“Delta”) filed its memorandum in opposition to the Motion (“Delta Opposition”).^[1][Dkt. no. 417.]

The DPI Defendants, Cooper, and ACKI (collectively “Moving Defendants”) filed their respective replies to the United States Opposition on October 14, 2022 (“DPI Defendants Reply,” “Cooper Reply,” and “ACKI Reply”). [Dkt. nos. 430, 432, 434.] Also on October 14, 2022, ACKI filed its reply to the Delta Opposition (“ACKI Reply to Delta Opposition”). [Dkt. no. 436.]

The United States filed its Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on October 25, 2022 (“United States Surreply”).^[2] [Dkt. no. 458.] On October 31, 2022, the DPI Defendants, ACKI, and Cooper filed their respective surreplies to the United States Surreply (“DPI Defendants Surreply,” “ACKI Surreply,” and “Cooper Surreply”). [Dkt. nos. 462, 463, 464.] The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.1(c) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (“Local Rules”). The Motions are hereby denied for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

I. Relevant Allegations

The United States' operative complaint is its Second

Amended Complaint, filed on October 7, 2022.^[3] [Dkt. no. 422.] The United States alleges ACKI was the general contractor and participated in the design and/or construction of Napilihau Villages (“Napilihau”), Napili Villas Phases I, II, and III (collectively “Napili”), Palehua Terrace Phase I (“Palehua”), Kahului Town Terrace (“Kahului”), and Wailea Fairway Villas (“Wailea” and collectively “the Subject Properties”). See Id. at ¶¶ 4-10. The United States further alleges Cooper participated in the design and/or construction of Napilihau and the DPI Defendants participated in the design and/or construction of Napili and Wailea. See id. at ¶¶ 11-13.

The United States asserts the Moving Defendants, among others, “have discriminated against persons with disabilities by failing to design and construct covered multifamily dwellings [at the Subject Properties] that are accessible to persons with disabilities.” [Id. at ¶ 1.] Pertinent to the Motions, the United States alleges the Moving Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”),^[4] 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(C), and 24 C.F.R. §§ 100.202(a) and (b), and 100.205(c). See id. at ¶¶ 42-44.b. The United States seeks: a declaratory judgment that the named defendants violated the FHA; an injunction against the named defendants to stop violating the FHA; and monetary damages. See id. at pgs. 22-24.

II. Relevant Facts

A. Preliminary Matters

Local Rule 56.1(e) states, in pertinent part:

The opposing party shall also assert, in a separate section of its concise statement, any additional facts the party believes the court should consider, set forth in the same manner as in the movant's concise statement, as described in LR56.1(b). If such additional facts are advanced in the opposing party's concise statement, the movant shall file, together with its reply brief, a further concise statement that responds only to those additional facts.

Additionally, “[f]or purposes of a motion for summary judgment, material facts set forth in the movant's concise statement will be deemed admitted unless controverted by a separate concise statement of the opposing party.” Local Rule LR56.1(g). Although the DPI Defendants filed a reply to the United States' memorandum in opposition, their accompanying concise statement of facts does not address the United States concise statement of facts to the DPI Defendants Joinder. See generally DPI Defendants' Concise Statement of Facts in Support of Defendants Design Partners, Inc. and Michael N. Goshi's Reply Memorandum to United States' Memorandum in Opposition to Motions for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendants Albert C. Kobayashi, Inc., Martin V. Cooper, Design Partners, Inc. and Michael N. Goshi [Dkt. #411] (“DPI Defendants Responsive CSOF”), filed 10/14/22 (dkt. no. 431); see also United States' Response to Defendants Design Partners, Inc.'s and Michael N. Goshi's Concise Statement of Facts in Support of Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“United States CSOF to DPI Defendants Joinder”),^[5] filed 10/7/22 (dkt. no. 415).

Similarly, although Cooper filed a reply to the United States' memorandum in opposition, his accompanying concise statement of fact does not address the United States' additional facts. See generally Cooper's Concise Statement of Facts in Support of Defendant Martin V. Cooper's Substantive Joinder to Defendant Albert C. Kobayashi, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 369] (“Cooper Responsive CSOF”), filed 10/14/22 (dkt. no. 433); see also United States' Response to Defendant Martin V. Cooper's Concise Statement of Facts in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“United States CSOF to Cooper Joinder”),^[6] filed 10/7/22 (dkt. no. 416). Therefore, the United States' additional facts expressly cited here are deemed admitted for purposes of this Order.

B. Napili

Napili is a multifamily housing project on Maui, Hawai'i that consists of 26 buildings without elevators. It has 184 dwelling units, 80 of which are ground-floor units. See United States' Response to Defendant Albert C. Kobayashi, Inc.'s Concise Statement of Facts in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“United States CSOF to ACKI Motion”), filed 10/7/22 (dkt. no. 414), at ¶¶ 1-2;^[7] Defendant Albert C. Kobayashi, Inc.'s Concise Counterstatement of Facts in Response to United States' Response to Defendant Albert C. Kobayashi, Inc.'s Concise Statement of Facts in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Filed October 7, 2022 [ECF. No. 414] (“ACKI Responsive CSOF”), filed 10/14/22 (dkt. no. 435), at ¶¶ 1-2 (stating that United States CSOF to ACKI Motion ¶¶ 1-2 is undisputed). “ACK was the general contractor for Napili and participated in the design and/or construction of the groundfloor units at Napili.” [United States CSOF to ACKI Motion at ¶ 4; ACKI Responsive CSOF at ¶ 4.] “ACK's contract for Napili specified that ACK would construct 100 condominium units and related common elements.” [United States CSOF to ACKI Motion at ¶ 7 (ellipse, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted); ACKI Responsive CSOF at ¶ 7.] “ACK constructed sidewalks, stairs, and railings in the public and common use areas of Napili.” [United States CSOF to ACKI Motion at ¶ 8; ACKI Responsive CSOF at ¶ 8.]

The DPI Defendants “participated in the design and/or construction of the ground floor units at Napili.” [United States CSOF to DPI Defendants Joinder at ¶ 4.] According to a fee proposal related to Napili, the DPI Defendants were responsible for “develop[ing] a site plan, floor plans, building plans, roof plans, exterior elevations, and . . . prepar[ing] sketches of the total proposed project concept ....” [DPI Defendants' Concise Statement of Facts in Support of Defendants Design Partners, Inc. and Michael N. Goshi's Substantive Joinder to Defendant Albert C. Kobayashi, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. #369] (“DPI Defendants CSOF”), filed 8/1/22 (dkt. no. 377), Declaration of Michael N. Goshi (“Goshi Decl.”), Exh. A (Fee Proposal, dated 5/30/01 and revised 7/19/01, to Napili Villas, LLC from DPI) at PageID.2447).]

Although a civil engineer was “to provide the grading, drainage and utilities engineering plans,” the DPI Defendants were to “provide support as required by [the civil engineer] during this...