Ko Olina Development, LLC v. Centex Homes

MEMORANDUM

We consider here the cross-appeals by Ko Olina Development, LLC (KOD) and Centex Homes. KOD appeals from the district court’s judgment. Centex appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion for reconsideration of an order enforcing the judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

I. KOD’s Appeal

We review de novo the interpretation and meaning of contract provisions. Milenbach v. C.I.R., 318 F.3d 924, 930 (9th Cir.2003). Under Hawai’i law, which applies here, the terms of a contract are interpreted according to their plain, ordinary and accepted use in common speech, unless the contract indicates a different meaning. Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85 , 839 P.2d 10, 24 (1992). We look no further than the four corners of the document to determine whether an ambiguity exists, and the parties’ disagreement as to the meaning of a contract or its terms does not render clear language ambiguous. Stanford Carr Dev. Corp. v. Unity House, Inc., 111 Hawai'i

286, 141 P.3d 459, 471 (2006). An “ambiguity is found to exist ... only when the contract taken as a whole, is reasonably subject to differing interpretation.” Stur-la,…