With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". which to advance any “new argument” to Judge Bryant. That being so, the publication of Viernes did not and could not justify Judge Bryant’s “reconsideration” of Judge Town’s order. Because neither the evidentiary nor legal bases of Oughterson’s de minimis arguments had changed in the interim between Judge Town’s entry of his order denying Oughter-son’s motion to dismiss and Judge Bryant’s subsequent entry of his order granting Oughterson’s motion for reconsideration of Judge Town’s order, we hold that Judge Bryant lacked any cogent reason for granting Oughterson’s motion for reconsideration, and, therefore, abused his discretion in doing so. As a final matter, we are compelled to note that, in his December 10, 1999 findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, Jud , 271-72 (1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. Park, 55 Haw. 610, 615-18, 525 P.2d

A: holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint
B: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible
C: holding that trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants de minimis motion because defendant established that his conduct in connection with benevolently assisting a runaway did not alter the custodial relationship with which prosecution accused him of interfering
D: holding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendants motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the defendant did not admit to facts demonstrating the required mental state
C.