N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

PJY E NT E RPRISE S, L L C, a H aw aii lim ite d liabilityc om pany ; M IKE , INC., a H aw aii c or por ation; AL O H A ARCADE , INC., a H aw aii c o r por ation; G S E NT E RT AINM E NT , INC., a H aw aii c or por ation,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. KE IT H M . K

ANE SH I RO , in his offic ial c apac ity as the Pr ose c uting Attor ne y of the City and County of H onolulu; L O UIS M . KE AL O H A , in his offic ial c apac ity as the Chie f of Polic e of the City and County of H onolulu; AARO N YO U NG ; H O NO L UL U PO L ICE DE PART M E NT ,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-16016 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-00577-LEK-R

LP
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii Le slie E . Koba

y a shi, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 21, 2017 

# FIL ED
MAR 09 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.pa ge 2 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : K O Z INSKI , H A W KINS and B E A , C i rc u it Judge s. 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt to theHonolulu Polic e De pa

rtm e nt, Ke ith M . Ka

ne shiro, Louis M . Ke a l oha and Aa ron Young on whe the r the Produc t s Dire c t Swe e psta

ke s (PDS) te rm i na ls tha

t the Honolulu Polic e De pa rtm e nt se iz e d from

pla intiffs’ arc a de s c onstitute d “ gam bling de vic e s” within the m e aning of Ha

wa ii R e vise d Statute se c tion 712-1220. The undispute d sta tistic a l a nd e pisodic e vide nc e in the re c ord e sta blishe s tha

t only a sm a ll portion of the disc ount c oupons obtaine d from the PDS te rm ina ls we re e ve r re giste re d on the Produc ts Dire c t we b site , and only a sm a ll portion of the re giste re d c oupons
we re e ve r use d to purc ha se m e rc ha ndise . This shows tha

t the te rm ina l s we re not
use d to buy disc ount c o upons but ra

the r to “ sta

ke [] or risk[] som e thing of va lue ” for the pote ntia l c a sh priz e . Ha w. R e v. Stat . § 712-1220.
2. The e vide ntia

ry c ha lle nge s pla intiffs ra i se don’ t a ffe c t our a na ly sis. First, pla i ntiffs a

rgue tha t the distric t c ourt e rrone ously de t e rm i ne d tha

t De te c t ive s Young a nd Solon ne ve r re c e ive d the ite m s tha t the y orde re d from

the Produc ts Dire c t we bsite
. B ut the fa c t tha t the de te c tive s e ve ntua lly re c e i ve d the ir ite m s
a lm ost two months a fte r the y pla c e d the ir orde rs— and a fte r the y m a de thepa ge 3

de c la rations a t issue

— i s insuffic ie nt to c re ate a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t
re ga rding thebona

fide nat ure of the we bsite
. Se c ond, pla i ntiffs’ c ha l le nge tha t the distric t c ourt e rrone ously e xc lude d pla i ntiffs’ e vide nc e re ga

rding thesa le of c o upon books is e qua lly futile . The ty

pe s of produc ts tha

t we re be i ng sold or the

re l ative popula

rity of e a c h ite m

is irre le va

nt to whe the r the use rs of the PDS te rm ina ls we re “ gam bling” or buy ing disc ount
c oupons. Third, thedistric t c ourt prope rly re l ie d on pe rsona l obse rvations c onta ine d in the d e c la rat ions of De te c tive s Young a nd Solon a

nd of C ha d Te ruy a . Although the s e obse rvations re lat e d to W inne r’ z Zone arc a d e s, owne d and ope rate d by

the pla i ntiffs who a

re not pa rtie s to this a

ppe a l, nothing in the

re c ord sugge sts tha

t the PDS te rm ina ls in Luc ky

Zone arc a de s ope rate d diffe re ntly or tha t c ustom e rs a

t Luc ky Zone arc a de s be hav e d diffe re ntly
. Fina lly , the pa

ra gra ph in De te c tive Young’ s de c la ration de s c ribing wha

t the
use rs of the PDS te rm ina ls told him m ay have be e n he arsay . B ut, in light of the othe r undispute d e vide nc e , the distric t c o urt’ s fa ilure to e xc lude this e v ide nc e wa s not pre judic ia l. Se e Am

bat v. C ity

& C ty . of San Fran c isc o, 757 F.3d 1017, 1032 (9th C ir. 2014).pa ge 4

3. Nor did thedistric t c ourt a buse its disc re tion in a

pply ing its loc a l rule 56.1. Eve n if the distric t c ourt de pa rte d from the stric t la

ngua ge of its loc a l rule , the d e pa rture didn’ t a ffe c t the substa ntia l rights of e ithe r party . Se e Prof’ l Program s Grp. v. Dep’ t of C om m e rc e , 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th C ir. 1994).
AFFIRM E D.