🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Barry M. Kurren

United States District Court for the District of Hawaii magistrate 19 signed orders read

How Judge Kurren decides

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

What persuades

Kurren applied judicial estoppel where the record showed that nondisclosure in bankruptcy was not a simple mistake.

“Ah Quin’s failure to disclose this lawsuit during the bankruptcy proceedings was not based on mere inadvertence or mistake.”

He treated evidence of a possible unwritten prison medication policy as sufficient to create a triable deliberate-indifference issue.

“Questions of fact exist as to whether the prison doctors acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff Raymond E. Kenney’s (‘Kenney’) serious medical needs.”

Procedural preferences

He emphasized that scheduling deadlines protect the integrity of litigation and carry consequences when ignored.

“Adherence to reasonable deadlines is ... critical to maintaining integrity in court proceedings.”

At summary judgment, he expected parties to identify record evidence rather than leaving the court to search for it.

“the court ‘is not required to comb the record to find some reason to deny a motion for summary judgment.’”

Cautions

He distinguished a dangerous substance from an abnormally dangerous activity when evaluating strict-liability pleadings.

“absolute liability attaches only to ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous activities, not ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous materials”

In extradition proceedings, he required both low flight risk and special circumstances before allowing release.

“This Court finds that Respondents do not pose a risk of flight and that special circumstances justify granting bail.”

Signed rulings

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

Donaldson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
· 1996-10-30
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Granted

“Based on the intervening changes in the law and the discussion above, this court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Interlocutory Amended Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings Filed September 19, 1995.”

Star Markets, Ltd. v. Texaco, Inc.
· 1996-10-02
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.”

Cruz v. United States
· 1997-11-28

After a consent bench trial, the court directed judgment for the United States: “the court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of USA and against Cruz.” The decision resolved the merits after trial rather than a party motion.

Ah Quin v. County of Kauai Department of Transportation
· 2010-04-01
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”

United States v. All Right, Title & Interest in Real Property Titled in the Name of Taipei Partners
· 2003-01-07
Motion to quash seizure (claimant Taipei Partners) Granted

“The court hereby GRANTS Claimant Taipei Partners’ Motion to Quash the Seizure Warrant issued by this court on August 4, 1995 and executed August 9, 1995.”

Akee v. Dow Chemical Co.
· 2002-12-17
Motions to dismiss (manufacturing defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Count V of the Third Amended Complaint as against the Manufacturing Defendants is GRANTED.”

Queens Medical Center v. Katz
· 1999-10-26
Summary judgment (plaintiff Queens Medical Center) Granted

“Based on the foregoing, Queens’s Motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED and Global’s Motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendants Global Claims Management, Medi-Excel Assistance, and Canada Life Assurance) Denied
Kowalski v. Ocean Duke Corp.
· 2008-03-25
Motion for judgment as matter of law (defendant Ocean Duke) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Ocean Duke’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is hereby DENIED.”

Tongson v. County of Maui
· 2008-04-17
Summary judgment (defendants against plaintiff Veranio Tongson) Granted in part

“Defendants’ motions are hereby GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiffs’ claims for First Amendment retaliation brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

Summary judgment (defendants against plaintiff Jeffrey Javier) Granted in part
Summary judgment (defendants against plaintiff Kim Nemoto) Granted in part
In re the Extradition of Chapman
· 2006-10-26
Motion for release on bail (respondents) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Respondents’ Motion.”

Kenney v. Paderes
· 2002-08-21
Summary judgment (defendant prison doctors) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”

State of Hawaii v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
· 2006-10-30
Motion for leave to file supplemental notice of removal (defendant Dey) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Dey’s Motion is hereby DENIED on the grounds of futility.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 497.0 days (N = 40).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 121 days (N = 5).

The 40 located assigned cases were all terminated and form a bounded historical cohort rather than a career-wide caseload measure.

Put Judge Kurren's record to work

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

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