David Alan Ezra

U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii district Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 20 signed orders read

How Judge Ezra decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In an environmental enforcement case under the Clean Water Act, the judge counts a violation of a monthly-average discharge limit as a separate violation for every day of that month (not one violation per month), reasoning that any other reading would let a polluter concentrate a month's worth of violations into a single 'Pollution Day' and escape most of the statutory per-day penalty.

“with respect to claim three, this Court finds that a violation of a monthly average will be counted as a violation of every day of the month.”

The judge treats an arbitrator's finding on a distinct legal question (just cause for a workplace termination) as no bar to relitigating a related but different federal statutory question (whether protected leave was a negative factor in that same termination), refusing to let collateral estoppel foreclose an FMLA claim on that basis.

“the issue before the arbitrator was different from the issue in front of this Court. The issue before the arbitrator was whether or not there was just cause for the termination from employment. Whereas, the issue before this Court is whether the taking of FMLA leave was a negative factor in the termination decision.”

Procedural preferences

Facing a defendant's speedy-trial-based motion to dismiss an indictment, the judge walks through each continuance in the record individually to determine who actually caused the delay, and treats continuances the defendant requested or did not oppose as weighing heavily against dismissal -- discovery delays alone, without evidence of bad faith, are treated as negligence at most, not misconduct.

“the vast majority of the delay (approximately 17 of the 23 months) was due to either the fact that the case was designated complex, that a co-defendant's counsel withdrew, court congestion, or Defendant's own motion.”

On a Rule 60 motion alleging fraud on the court, the judge insists on a clear-and-convincing evidentiary showing and will hold a multi-day evidentiary hearing before ruling rather than deciding a serious fraud allegation on the papers alone -- but a party's own trial record can defeat a 'newly discovered evidence' claim if the record shows the party already knew the fact years earlier.

“The record demonstrates that Petitioner and his counsel knew that the 911 tape contained audio of a person uttering the described words prior to the habeas proceedings in 2008.”

When a motion for emergency relief was not first presented to the lower tribunal that could have granted it, the judge treats that failure as a procedural bar independent of the merits, and still addresses the merits in the alternative so the ruling stands on both grounds.

“Appellants have failed to move in the first instance for an emergency stay in the bankruptcy court and have failed to show that the bankruptcy judge was unavailable or that the instant request was denied. Accordingly, Appellants are procedurally barred from bringing the instant TRO in front of this Court.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Hawai'i Disability Rights Center v. Susanna F. Cheung
06-00605 DAE-BMK · 2007-01-26
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”

Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter, et al. v. City and County of Honolulu, et al.
04-00463 DAE-BMK · 2007-04-16
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration as outlined herein.”

United States v. Keith Seichi Imai
05-00189-01 DAE · 2007-02-20
Motion to dismiss indictment (defendant) Denied

“Therefore, Defendant's motion is DENIED.”

SCD RMA, LLC v. Farsighted Enterprises, Inc.
07-00539 DAE-LEK · 2008-12-23
Judgment on the pleadings (third-party defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Guardia's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”

Haldeman, et al. v. Golden, et al.
05-00810 DAE-KSC · 2008-04-29
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant County of Hawai'i's Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Kaneshiro v. Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., et al.
06-00574 DAE-LEK · 2008-09-29
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.,'s Motion for Summary Judgment.”

United States v. Syed Qadri, et al.
06-00469 DAE · 2010-03-09
Motion to dismiss indictment (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, the Court: (1) DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Superseding Indictment; and (2) DENIES Defendant's Request for Evidentiary Hearing.”

Botelho, et al. v. State of Hawaii, et al.
06-00096 DAE/BMK · 2010-02-25
Class certification (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.”

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Wilkerson, et al.
10-00356 DAE-LEK · 2010-10-08
Motion for temporary restraining order (defendant) Denied

“For all the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Appellants' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. # 13.)”

Hasegawa v. State of Hawaii, et al.
10-00745 DAE-BMK · 2011-05-24
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's remaining cause of action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and per Plaintiff's request, DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's causes of action seeking damages based on Plaintiff's EEOC complaint, Plaintiff's actions as a 'whistle blower,' and Defendants' acts of 'negligence' and 'omission,' leaving only Plaintiff's claim for the replacement of property allegedly taken from him at the time of his imprisonment.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Additionally, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint, FAC, and SAC, the Court also DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Weeks v. Frank, et al.
10-00235 DAE-RLP · 2011-06-15
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“This Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 51) and GRANTS Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 56). The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted
United States v. John Sardinha
02-00272 DAE-04 · 2011-11-23
Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order Denying Defendant's request for a sentence below the applicable statutory minimum. (Doc. # 308.)”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Sampled and enumerated cases span consumer/mortgage litigation (Truth in Lending, foreclosure-related), employment, environmental enforcement, prisoner civil-rights and habeas/Section 2255 petitions, commercial contract disputes, and civil-rights class actions -- a broad general district docket. The docket record for this district often preserves the full text of the substantive orders themselves even where surrounding minute entries are stub-only.

Put Judge Ezra's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Ezra actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Ezra's own signed orders and cites them.