My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008-10-01_Jack_Thomas_v_COH_-_Order_Granting_Defendants_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_and_Remanding_State_Law_Claims
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Court Documents
>
2008-10-01_Jack_Thomas_v_COH_-_Order_Granting_Defendants_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_and_Remanding_State_Law_Claims
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:27:56 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:26:55 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Case 1:07-cv-00251-JMS-LEK Document 52 Filed 10/01/2008 Page 3 of 17 <br /> provided the prosecutors tape recordings and videotapes showing that Chung had <br /> threatened Plaintiff's family. Id. 15. The prosecutors refused to file charges, <br /> explaining that they had no reasonable belief that they could prove the case against <br /> Chung to a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; see also Pl.'s Exs. 6-10. <br /> Despite Judge Moran's May 11, 2004 dismissal of the civil action, <br /> Plaintiff learned that the State of Hawaii was considering filing a criminal charge <br /> against him.' On December 20, 2004, Plaintiff met with Kimura at a police station <br /> in Hilo and provided him information showing that the TRO against Plaintiff was <br /> dismissed. Pl.'s Ex. 12, Pl.'s Decl. 11 3-4. Kimura also met with Jack Matsui, <br /> who told Kimura that Judge Moran had cleared Plaintiff of the violation. Pl.'s Ex. <br /> 16, Matsui Decl. 14. Matsui gave Kimura documents showing the dismissal of <br /> the civil action, and in response, Kimura told Matsui that they were still <br /> investigating Chung's complaint and would consider this evidence. Id. 16. <br /> ' Plaintiff asserts that during a November 26, 2004 hearing, an individual from the <br /> prosecutor's office stated that they were still investigating Plaintiff in conjunction with the <br /> police. Pl.'s Ex. 19(c), Pl.'s Decl. 117(a). While not articulated in either of the parties' Concise <br /> Statements, it appears that Judge Moran held another hearing with Plaintiff and Chung on <br /> November 26, 2004 in which he again stated that Plaintiff had not violated the TRO on March <br /> 26, 2004. See Pl.'s Ex. 19(b), Strauss Decl. 16. In general, neither party provided a clear time <br /> line of events or explanation of Plaintiff's and Defendants' interactions prior to the criminal <br /> charge. The court therefore outlines the facts based on what dates and specific information the <br /> parties did provide. <br /> z While not included in his Concise Statement, Plaintiff asserts in his Opposition that the <br /> prosecutors conducted their own investigation by interviewing Chung "on at least one and <br /> (continued...) <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.