O'Hailpin v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
RIKI O’HAILPIN; NINA ARIZUMI;
ROBERT ESPINOSA; ERWIN YOUNG;
PUANANI BADIANG; SABRINA
FRANKS; RONALD LUM; DAN SAIKI;
BRANDEE AUKAI,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.;
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIV. NO. 22-00532 HG-WRP
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (ECF Nos. 390 and 391)
and
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE (ECF Nos. 395 and 399)
In August 2021, Defendants Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and
Hawaiian Holdings, Inc. (“Hawaiian Defendants”) announced their
intention to implement a mandatory vaccination policy requiring
its U.S.-based employees to be vaccinated for COVID-19.
At the time the policy was announced, Plaintiffs Robert
Espinosa and Dan Saiki were employed as pilots by the Hawaiian
Defendants. Plaintiffs Riki O’Hailpin and Brandee Aukai were
employed as flight attendants.
Plaintiffs Espinosa, Saiki, O’Hailpin, and Aukai each
1
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

requested to be exempt from the Hawaiian Defendants’ COVID-19
vaccination policy based on their religious beliefs. The
Hawaiian Defendants denied their four requests for exemption from
the vaccination policy.
Plaintiffs Espinosa, Saiki, O’Hailpin, and Aukai, along with
five other individuals, have filed suit against the Hawaiian
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Espinosa, Saiki, O’Hailpin, and Aukai claim the
Hawaiian Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate their
religious beliefs in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. The Hawaiian Defendants assert that it would have
caused undue hardship to accommodate the pilots’ and flight
attendants’ requests for exemption.
The Hawaiian Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based on
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to Plaintiffs Espinosa and
Saiki’s religious accommodation claims.
The Hawaiian Defendants filed a separate Motion to Dismiss
based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to Plaintiffs
O’Hailpin and Aukai’s accommodation claims.
In the two Motions, the Hawaiian Defendants argue that the
Court may not review Plaintiffs Espinosa, Saiki, O’Hailpin, and
Aukai’s claims due to the jurisdictional limitations set forth in
the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 181-188 (“RLA”). The RLA
requires claims that involve interpretation of collective
2
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

bargaining agreements for transportation workers to be resolved
only through the RLA’s internal dispute-resolution processes.
See 45 U.S.C. § 184. The Hawaiian Defendants assert that
Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki’s claims require interpretation of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement that applied to the two
Plaintiffs as pilots at the time they sought exemption from the
vaccination policy. The Hawaiian Defendants also assert that
Plaintiffs O’Hailpin and Aukai’s claims require interpretation of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement that applied to the two
Plaintiffs as flight attendants at the time they sought exemption
from the vaccination policy.
On September 25, 2025, the Court set briefing schedules on
the two Motions to Dismiss pursuant to the Railway Labor Act.
Plaintiffs filed Oppositions to the Motions and Defendants filed
Replies.
The briefing concluded on October 20, 2025.
Plaintiffs now seek leave to file Supplemental Briefing in
response to the Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs claim that
depositions taken in a related case, Nelson, et al. v. Hawaiian
Airlines, Inc., et al., 23-cv-00603 HG-WRP, have caused
Plaintiffs to believe there may be a basis to file supplemental
responses to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss pursuant to the
Railway Labor Act.
The Court permitted the Plaintiffs to file Motions for Leave
3
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

to File Supplemental Responses and permitted Defendants to file
Oppositions.
Without leave of Court, Plaintiffs filed Replies to their
Motions for Leave to File Supplemental Responses.
Defendants filed Motions to Strike the Replies.
Supplemental Responses to the Motions to Dismiss are not
warranted. Plaintiffs have not established good cause to modify
the Court’s briefing schedule on the Motions to Dismiss.
Plaintiffs have failed to present any information that was new
and previously unavailable at the time Plaintiffs filed their
Oppositions to the Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs also have not
provided any information that is material to the jurisdictional
questions raised in the Motions to Dismiss pursuant to the
Railway Labor Act.
Plaintiffs’ Motions for Leave to File Supplemental Responses
(ECF Nos. 390 and 391) are DENIED.
BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 25, 2025, the Court issued a briefing schedule
on the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter
Jurisdiction Pursuant to The Railway Labor Act. (ECF No. 380).
The Briefing Schedule was completed on October 20, 2025.
(Id.)
On October 28, 2025, the Court received a letter from
4
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 4 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

Plaintiffs’ counsel requesting leave to file a Supplemental
Brief. (ECF No. 388).
The Court allowed Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Leave to
File a Supplemental Brief and allowed Defendants to file a
Response to the Motion. (ECF No. 389).
On November 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave
to file a Supplemental Briefing Re: the Pilots’ RLA Motion. (ECF
No. 390).
On November 6, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave
to file a Supplemental Briefing Re: the Flight Attendants’ RLA
Motion. (ECF No. 391).
On November 12, 2025, Defendants filed their Response to the
Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief Re: the Pilots’ RLA
Motion. (ECF No. 392).
On November 13, 2025, Defendants filed their Response to the
Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief Re: the Flight
Attendants’ RLA Motion. (ECF No. 393).
Without leave of Court, on November 20, 2025, Plaintiffs
filed a Reply to their Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental
Brief Re: the Pilots’ RLA Motion. (ECF No. 394).
Following Plaintiffs’ filing on November 20, 2025,
Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Reply Seeking to
File Supplement Re: Pilots’ RLA Motion. (ECF No. 395).
Later on November 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition
5
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 5 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike their Reply Seeking to Supplement
Briefing Re: Pilots’ RLA Motion. (ECF No. 398).
Also on November 21, 2025, again without leave of court,
Plaintiffs filed a Reply to their Motion for Leave to File a
Supplemental Brief Re: Flight Attendants’ RLA Motion. (ECF No.
396).
In response on November 21, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion
to Strike Plaintiffs’ Reply Seeking to Supplement Briefing Re:
Flight Attendants’ RLA Motion. (ECF No. 399).
On November 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike their Reply seeking to Supplement
Briefing on Flight Attendants Motion. (ECF No. 400).
The Court elects to decide the matter without a hearing
pursuant to District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.1(c).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.2, no
supplemental briefing is permitted “without leave of court.”
Good cause is required in order to amend a Court’s briefing
schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4);
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.
1992); GP Asset Holdings, LLC v. Rosslaw, PLLC, 2024 WL 5479142,
*1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2024) (applying good cause standard to a
request to modify a briefing schedule).
6
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 6 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

Good cause primarily considers the diligence of the party
seeking amendment. Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d
1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). If the party seeking amendment was
not diligent, the inquiry ends and amendment is not permitted.
Id.
ANALYSIS
I. Plaintiffs’ Motions for Leave To File Supplemental Responses
To Defendants’ Motions To Dismiss Pursuant To The Railway
Labor Act
A. Defendants’ Pending Motions to Dismiss
The Hawaiian Defendants have filed two separate Motions to
Dismiss. One Motion was filed against Plaintiffs Espinosa and
Saiki who were employed as pilots. The second Motion was filed
against Plaintiffs O’Hailpin and Aukai who were employed as
flight attendants.
In the two Motions, Defendants argue that the Court may not
review Plaintiffs Espinosa, Saiki, O’Hailpin, and Aukai’s
failure-to-accommodate claims related to the Hawaiian Defendants’
vaccination policy for COVID-19.
The Defendants’ Motions argue that the Court lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction to review such claims pursuant to the Railway
Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 181-188 (“RLA”). The RLA requires claims
that involve interpretation of collective bargaining agreements
for transportation workers to be resolved only through the RLA’s
internal dispute-resolution processes. See 45 U.S.C. § 184.
7
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 7 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

In the Motions to Dismiss, the Hawaiian Defendants assert
that Plaintiffs Espinosa, Saiki, O’Hailpin, and Aukai’s claims
require interpretation of their respective Collective Bargaining
Agreements.
On September 25, 2025, the Court ordered briefing on the
Defendants’ two Motions to Dismiss. (ECF No. 380). The briefing
schedule concluded on October 20, 2025. (ECF No. 387).
B. Plaintiffs’ Requests To File Supplemental Briefing As
To Defendants’ Two Pending Motions to Dismiss
On October 27, 2025, a week after the closure of the
briefing schedule on Defendants’ two Motions to Dismiss, the
Court received a letter from Plaintiffs’ counsel seeking leave to
file Motions to File Supplemental Responses to the pending
Motions. (ECF No. 388).
On October 28, 2025, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to file
Motions for Leave to Supplement the two pending Motions to
Dismiss. (ECF No. 389).
In their Motions, Defendants argue they should be able to
file supplemental responses based on depositions that were
conducted in a related case, Nelson, et al. v. Hawaiian Airlines,
Inc., et al., 23-cv-00603 HG-WRP.
8
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 8 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

C. Good Cause Is Required To Modify A Court’s Briefing
Schedule
A request to modify a Court’s scheduling order must comply
with the good cause standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,
975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In their Motions for Leave to
File Supplemental Responses, Plaintiffs argue that supplemental
briefing should be freely granted pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15 regarding the amendment of pleadings. This is
the incorrect standard.
Good cause is required to modify, continue, or supplement a
briefing schedule issued by the Court. See In re W. States
Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir.
2013) (scheduling orders may be modified upon a showing of “good
cause,” which principally turns on the diligence of the movant
seeking the extension); Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624
F.3d 1253, 1259-61 (9th Cir. 2010); Ironwood Homes, Inc. v.
Bowen, 719 F.Supp.2d 1277, 1286 (D. Or. 2010) (finding no good
cause to continue the briefing schedule).
Good cause focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to
extend or modify the order. Kirola v. City & Cnty. of San
Francisco, 2014 WL 2737686, *2 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2014) (citing
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and denying
parties’ request to modify briefing schedule for lack of good
9
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 9 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

cause shown).
D. Supplemental Briefing Is Not Warranted
1. The Supplemental Evidence And Arguments Are Not
New Or Previously Unavailable
Good cause may be established to allow for supplemental
briefing if new, previously unavailable information became
available after the briefing deadline despite the diligence of
the party seeking to modify the order. See Eckert Cold Storage,
Inc. v. Behl, 943 F.Supp. 1230, 1233 (E.D. Cal. 1996).
The events in this case took place more than four years ago
beginning in August 2021. The Complaint in this case was filed
nearly three years ago on December 22, 2022. (ECF No. 1).
Discovery in this case was closed nearly nine months ago on March
14, 2025. (Minute Order, ECF No. 182). Briefing on the Motions
to Dismiss concluded on October 20, 2025. (ECF Nos. 380 and
387).
Plaintiffs filed Motions for Leave to File Supplemental
Responses, seeking to include evidence of two depositions that
they recently completed in a different case. In addition,
Plaintiffs wish to include evidence and argument about foreign
travel restriction information that was publicly available in
2021 and 2022.
10
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 10 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

a. Deposition Testimony Of Previously Disclosed
Witnesses Is Not New
Plaintiffs seek to file Supplemental Briefing based on
depositions taken in a different case. Plaintiffs’ Motions for
Leave rely on two depositions.
First, Plaintiffs rely on the deposition of Justin Doane,
who was the Hawaiian Defendants’ Vice President of Labor
Relations, and was deposed on October 21, 2025, in the Nelson
case.
Second, Plaintiffs rely on the deposition of Robin Sparling,
who was the Hawaiian Defendants’ Managing Director of In-Flight
Services, and was deposed on October 23, 2025, in the Nelson
case.
The depositions were taken after the Oppositions to the
Motions to Dismiss were filed, but the information was not new or
previously unavailable. As the Hawaiian Defendants point out,
both Justin Doane and Robin Sparling were identified in the
Hawaiian Defendants’s Rule 26 initial disclosures in this case
over two-and-a-half years ago. (See Ex. A attached to Def.’s
Opp., ECF No. 392-2). Plaintiffs could have sought to depose the
two employees during the discovery period in this case, but they
chose not to do so. Plaintiffs obtained the information from
Doane and Sparling because they were deposed in the Nelson case,
which was filed a full year after this case was filed.
11
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 11 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

Supplemental briefing based on the depositions is not
appropriate. Plaintiffs have not established their own diligence
or that the deposition evidence was previously unavailable.
Evidence that a party had access to or evidence that the party
could have obtained on its own throughout the litigation is not
“previously unavailable.” ACLU of So. Cal. v. U.S. ICE, 347
F.R.D. 518, 527 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2024).
b. Publicly Available Documents Are Not New
Plaintiffs also seek leave to file supplemental briefing
based on public notices concerning travel restrictions imposed by
foreign governments in 2021 and 2022, including the High
Commission of French Polynesia, the Office of the Governor of
American Samoa, the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, and the New South
Wales Public Health Order regarding COVID-19 Air Transportation
Quarantine.
All of these documents are not new or previously
unavailable. Documents and information that were publicly
available and accessible on the internet do not constitute
“previously unavailable” evidence as required to establish good
cause. Albanes v. ITT Aerospace Controls, LLC, 2019 WL 13256798,
*3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2019).
The majority of the foreign restrictions evidence was
already submitted as part of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.
12
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 12 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

Plaintiffs had every opportunity to examine the documents and
present their arguments in their Oppositions. Plaintiffs have
not established diligence in pursuing the information that they
now seek to supplement. Arguments that could have been raised
earlier in the litigation are not a basis to allow a party to
file a supplemental brief. Maluf v. Bergelectric Corp., 2025 WL
2312043, *1 n.1 (D. Nev. July 29, 2025) (denying motion to file
supplemental briefing because a litigant may not attempt to file
a supplemental brief in order to raise arguments that he could
have, but failed to raise, in his opposition); see Kona Enters.,
Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
c. Issues Raised In The Defendants’ Motions To
Dismiss Pursuant To The Railway Labor Act Are
Not New
The issues raised in the Defendants’ two Motions to Dismiss
based on the Collective Bargaining Agreements at issue are also
of no surprise to the Plaintiffs. The Court has already
adjudicated a similar Motion filed pursuant to the Railway Labor
Act in this case as to Plaintiff Nina Arizumi. (Court’s May 6,
2025 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND
HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION AS TO COUNTS I AND IV FOR
PLAINTIFF NINA ARIZUMI, ECF No. 254).
In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel has been aware of the
13
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 13 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

potential applicability of the RLA in this case since well before
the filing of Defendants’ first Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff
Arizumi. Plaintiffs’ counsel, John C. Sullivan, was counsel for
plaintiffs in Odell v. Kalitta Air, LLC, 107 F.4th 523, 532 (6th
Cir. 2024), which the Court cited in the Arizumi Order. The
Odell case was argued on March 21, 2024, and decided by the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals on July 9, 2024. Plaintiffs had plenty
of notice as to the issues at play regarding the Railway Labor
Act and supplemental briefing as to these Motions is not
warranted.
Plaintiffs have not established their own diligence to allow
for supplemental briefing. There is also no new or previously
unavailable evidence that supports a finding of good cause to
permit Plaintiffs to file supplemental briefing.
2. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Evidence And Arguments
Are Not Material
Plaintiffs also have not demonstrated that the evidence and
arguments they seek to assert in supplemental briefing would
assist the Court’s jurisdictional analysis pursuant to the
Railway Labor Act.
a. The Standard For Adjudicating Motions To
Dismiss Pursuant To The Railway Labor Act
Pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, a court is without
14
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 14 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

subject-matter jurisdiction to review a plaintiff’s claim that
concerns interpretation of the “duties and rights created or
defined by the collective bargaining agreement.” Alaska
Airlines, Inc. v. Schurke, 898 F.3d 904, 919 (9th Cir. 2018) (en
banc).
In evaluating preclusion pursuant to the Railway Labor Act,
the analysis is whether a provision of the applicable Collective
Bargaining Agreement could “arguably” dispose of a claim or
defense. Schurke, 898 F.3d at 924. The analysis hinges on
whether the trier of fact would arguably need to resolve
disagreements about the terms of the collective bargaining
agreement to evaluate a plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate claim
or a defendant’s undue hardship defense. Id.
Here, the questions before the Court are whether the pilots’
Collective Bargaining Agreement and the flight attendants’
Collective Bargaining Agreement require interpretation in order
to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims and would therefore divest the
Court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
b. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Evidence And
Arguments Do Not Assist The Court In Its
Evaluation Of The Motions To Dismiss Pursuant
To The Railway Labor Act
The questions before the Court are legal questions about
whether Plaintiffs’ reasonable accommodations claims and the
Defendants’ undue hardship defenses require interpretation of the
15
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 15 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

applicable Collective Bargaining Agreements.
Plaintiffs’ Motions for Leave to File Supplemental
Responses, however, do not properly consider the Railway Labor
Act standard. Plaintiffs argue that the Hawaiian Defendants did
not need to consider any of the foreign government restrictions
that were in play during the time period of the implementation of
the Defendants’ COVID-19 policy. Plaintiffs argue that the
Hawaiian Defendants in their Motions to Dismiss misrepresented
the severity of the restrictions that they relied upon. In fact,
Plaintiffs claim there were no restrictions at all. The Court
disagrees. The restrictions speak for themselves and no
supplemental briefing is required as to the information provided
in the publicly available documents setting forth travel
restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Plaintiffs further argue that certain foreign flight routes
were “turns” and that flight crew may not have been required to
formally enter some of the jurisdictions when assigned to such
routes. This argument, however, ignores the possibility of other
interruptions, inclement weather, operational delays, or
equipment failures that may have impacted flight crews on said
routes. More importantly, the argument ignores the realities of
the ever-changing legal landscape during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Just as with the Federal Contractor Mandate, the Hawaiian
Defendants were required to consider the potential operational
16
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 16 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

disruptions that may have been caused given the various laws,
regulations, and protocols at play with the large numbers of
accommodations requests. The undue hardship analysis also
requires consideration of potential operational disruption caused
by accommodations to large numbers of employees at the same time.
Petersen v. Snohomish Reg’l Fire & Rescue, 150 F.4th 1211, 1220
(9th Cir. 2025).
The question before the Court is the legal question of
whether the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreements require
interpretation in the context of Plaintiffs’ requested
accommodations and the undue hardship standard. The question
concerns whether the Hawaiian Defendants could have accommodated
71 unvaccinated pilots and 268 unvaccinated flight attendants to
continue flying in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic without
implicating contractual issues relating to seniority, training,
and other terms of employment in the CBAs. Plaintiffs’ attempts
to ignore the foreign restrictions cited by the Plaintiffs and
underplay the impact and significance of the frequently changing
legal landscape governing travel during the pandemic are
unavailing.
The Court is not tasked with determining if a foreign
restriction cited by Plaintiffs would have hypothetically allowed
one of the unvaccinated pilots or flight attendants to fly a
specific route at a certain moment in time. The Ninth Circuit
17
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 17 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

Court of Appeals has explained that it is not for the courts to
determine whether a plaintiff’s request for an accommodation
would actually violate the collective bargaining agreement. The
task of the Court is merely to determine if interpretation of the
applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement is required to
adjudicate a plaintiff’s claim or whether a provision in a CBA
arguably disposes of a plaintiff’s claim. Schurke, 898 F.3d at
924.
Here, nothing relied upon by the Plaintiffs in their Motions
for Leave to File Supplemental Responses would assist the Court
in reviewing the pending Motions to Dismiss.
In addition, there is no basis to reopen discovery in this
case as requested by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not identified
any evidence they seek that would assist the Court in its
adjudication of the Motions to Dismiss. Discovery has been
closed for more than eight months. Plaintiffs have not
established their diligence that is required to demonstrate good
cause to allow for additional discovery. Johnson, 975 F.2d at
608.
Plaintiffs’ Motions for Leave to File Supplemental Responses
(ECF Nos. 390 and 391) are DENIED.
II. Motions to Strike
On October 28, 2025, the Court set a briefing schedule as
18
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 18 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

follows regarding Plaintiffs’ request to seek leave to file
supplemental responses to the Motions to Dismiss:
Plaintiffs Espinosa and Saiki may file a Motion for Leave To
File a Supplemental Response on or before Wednesday,
November 5, 2025.
Defendants shall file a Response to Plaintiffs Espinosa and
Saiki's Motion for Leave on or before Wednesday, November
12, 2025....
Plaintiffs O’Hailpin and Aukai may file a Motion for Leave
to File a Supplemental Response on or before Thursday,
November 6, 2025.
Defendants shall file a Response to Plaintiffs O’Hailpin and
Aukai’s Motion for Leave on or before Thursday, November 13,
2025.
(ECF No. 389).
On November 20, 2025 and November 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed
Reply briefs without leave of court. (ECF Nos. 394 and 396).
Defendants filed Motions to Strike the Reply briefs. (ECF
Nos. 395 and 399).
The Court did not allow for Reply briefs to be filed in
response to the Motions for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing
in its October 28, 2025 Minute Order (ECF No. 389), however, the
Court declines to strike the Replies (ECF Nos. 394 and 396).
The Parties are instructed that, going forward, Reply
briefing is only permitted where it is specifically ordered by
the Court.
Defendants’ Motions to Strike (ECF Nos. 395 and 399) are
DENIED.
19
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 19 of 20
PageID.<pageID>

CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ Motions for Leave to File Supplemental Responses
(ECF Nos. 390 and 391) are DENIED.
Defendants’ Motions to Strike (ECF Nos. 395 and 399) are
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 4, 2025, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Riki O’Hailpin; Nina Arizumi; Robert Espinosa; Erwin Young;
Puanani Badiang; Sabrina Franks; Ronald Lum; Dan Saiki; Brandee
Aukai vs. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.; Hawaiian Holdings, Inc., 22-
cv-00532 HG-WRP; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO
FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (ECF Nos. 390 and 391)
and DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE (ECF Nos. 395 and 399)
20
Case 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP Document 401 Filed 12/04/25 Page 20 of 20
PageID.<pageID>