Sakuma v. Association of Apartment Owners of The Tropics at Waikele et al

Filing 110

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 ORDER OF DISMISSAL re 105 . Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 1/31/12. (eps)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications will be served by first class mail on 02/01/2012

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
PATSY N. SAKUMA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ASSOCIATION OF CONDOMINIUM
)
OWNERS OF TROPICS AT WAIKELE,
)
COMMISSIONER JAMES S. KOMETANI; )
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 08-00502 HG-KSC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO VACATE THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Patsy N. Sakuma filed the above captioned action
to enjoin a judicial foreclosure of her condominium.

After

several rulings by this Court denying the relief sought in the
Plaintiff’s Complaint, the matter was dismissed on September 16,
2009.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the

dismissal of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff now moves to vacate

the District Court’s September 16, 2009 Order pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (b)(6) because the property
in dispute has not yet been sold at auction.

1

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate1 fails to articulate how a
change in the law or facts of the case warrant modification of
the Court’s September 16, 2009 Order of Dismissal.

The

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate is, therefore, DENIED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 5, 2008, Plaintiff Patsy N. Sakuma (“Plaintiff”
or “Sakuma”) began filing largely undecipherable pleadings.

The

pleading was first labeled Complaint and a Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order. (Doc. 1.)
On January 13, 2009, the District Court ordered the
dismissal with prejudice of Defendant Judge Karen N. Blondin
pursuant to absolute judicial immunity. (Order Granting Defendant
Judge Karen N. Blondin’s Motion to Dismiss, filed December 2,
2008 (Doc. 15).)2
On June 3, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s Ex Parte
Temporary Restraining Order Application.

(Minutes, June 3, 2009

1

The Plaintiff’s Motion, titled “NOTICE OF MOTION TO
PLAINTIFF-PRO SE’S MOTION TO VACATE SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AM. MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER DISMISSING
CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION & SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 JUDGMENT”
(Doc. 105), was filed on November 18, 2011. Plaintiff’s Motion
will be referred to as a “Motion to Vacate” throughout the Order.
2

Plaintiff thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration
which was denied by Court Order on March 30, 2009. (Order
Denying Plaintiff Patsy N. Sakuma’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. 23).) Plaintiff thereafter filed an interlocutory appeal
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which was denied as moot on
October 22, 2009. (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ Order,
October 22, 2009 (Doc. 93).)
2

(Doc. 33).)

The Court held that Plaintiff would not suffer

irreparable injury if the relief requested was denied, and that
Plaintiff had not shown that there was a likelihood of success on
the merits of the motion. (Id.)
On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an Order denying
Plaintiff’s November 5, 2008, and November 6, 2008, Motions for
Temporary Restraining Orders.

(Doc. 39.)

The Court held that

Plaintiff had not set forth the necessary requirements for a
Temporary Restraining Order in either motion, and that
Plaintiff’s pleadings were largely indecipherable. (Id.)
On June 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment but did not include a concise statement of facts.

(Doc.

45.)
On June 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for
Summary Judgment, along with an Amended Concise Statement of
Facts.

(Docs. 51 and 55).

On September 16, 2009, the Court issued an Order denying
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the
case (Doc. 85) (“September 16, 2009 Order of Dismissal”.
On September 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s September 16, 2009 Order of
Dismissal (Doc. 89).
On October 6, 2009, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
was denied (Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

3

(Doc. 91).)
On October 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the Court’s
September 16, 2009 Order of Dismissal (Doc. 94).
On October 5, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the Court’s September 16, 2009 Order of Dismissal (Doc.
102).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Mandate on

March 21, 2011 (Doc. 104).
The motion before the Court here, filed on November 18,
2011, is a Motion to Vacate the September 16, 2009 Order of
Dismissal (Doc. 105).
On January 3, 2012, the Defendant filed an Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 108).
On January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Reply to the
Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Doc.
109).
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the Court elected to decide
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate without a hearing.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Patsy N. Sakuma was the owner of a condominium
located in the Tropics at Waikele (“Condominium”).

The Plaintiff

allegedly rented the condominium to her family, which included
her disabled mother. (Complaint at PP 1 and 2, Doc. 1.)

4

In a prior case, the Association Of Condominium Owners Of
Tropics At Waikele (“AOCO Tropics”) brought a foreclosure action
against the Plaintiff in the Hawaii State District Court of the
First Circuit, Ewa Division, Civil No. 1RC01-5514, when she
failed to pay her condominium maintenance fees.

The Plaintiff

removed the first foreclosure action to the United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii, as Civil No. 02-00147.
The first foreclosure action was then dismissed on October 1,
2002, by stipulation of the parties after execution of a
settlement agreement. (Complaint at P 5, Doc. 1; Order of
dismissal, Doc. 10 in Civ. No. 02-00147.)
This matter arises out of a second foreclosure action filed
in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, by
AOCO Tropics.

(Complaint at PP 9 and 10 on pg. 4, Doc. 1.)

The

AOCO Tropics filed the underlying state foreclosure action when
the Plaintiff stopped paying the monthly maintenance fees for her
condominium.

(Id. at PP 6, 7, and 9.)

According to the

Complaint, the Plaintiff stopped the payments of fees a second
time in response to the public HandiVan’s refusal to enter the
condominium’s private driveway to pick up Plaintiff’s mother.
The allegation is that the HandiVan had refused to pick up the
Plaintiff’s disabled mother because there was a lack of HandiVan
parking and because there were complaints from neighbors.
at PP 6 and 7.)

(Id.

In the state proceeding, judgment was entered

5

against the Defendant and the condominium was ordered to be sold
at auction.

(Id.)

The Plaintiff filed this action in 2008 seeking to enjoin
the sale of the condominium.

The Plaintiff’s applications for a

Temporary Restraining Order were denied on June 3, 2009 and June
9, 2009.

On September 12, 2009, the action was dismissed

(“September 16, 2009 Order of Dismissal”) because the only relief
sought by the Complaint was a temporary restraining order.

In

addition, the action was dismissed because the Condominium had
already been sold, thereby rendering the Plaintiff’s Complaint
moot.
The Plaintiff appealed the Court’s September 16, 2009 Order
of Dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Plaintiff now moves to vacate the September 16, 2009
Order of Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(5) and (b)(6).

The Plaintiff claims that the sale of the

Condominium at auction was rescinded by a state court order on
September 10, 2010.

The Plaintiff argues that the Court’s

September 16, 2009 Order of Dismissal should be vacated because
the Condominium was never sold.

ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) states that “[o]n

6

motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a
party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment”
when “(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been
reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that
the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any
other reason that justifies relief.”

Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk

County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) provides for “a general,
flexible standard for all petitions brought under the equity
provision of Rule 60(b)(5).”

Bellevue Manor Assoc. v. United

States, 165 F.3d 1249, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999).

A Rule 60(b) motion

to modify a court order should be granted when there has been “a
significant change either in factual conditions or in law.”
Rufo, 502 U.S. at 384; see Horne v. Flores, 129 S. Ct. 2579, 2597
(2009).
Here, there has not been a significant change in the factual
conditions or law that gave rise to this Court’s September 16,
2009 Order of Dismissal.

This Court’s September 16, 2009 Order

of Dismissal outlined two independent reasons for dismissing the
Plaintiff’s Complaint.

The first reason focused on the merits of

the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

This Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s

Complaint because the relief sought by the Complaint, i.e., a
temporary restraining order to enjoin the sale of the
Condominium, had already been denied by this Court on two

7

separate occasions.

The second reason for the dismissal

pertained to jurisdiction.

This Court held that because the

Condominium had been sold, the Plaintiff’s Complaint was rendered
moot.
Now that the Condominium sale has been rescinded, the second
reason for dismissal is, arguably, no longer applicable.

The

first reason, however, still applies in full.
In the Plaintiff’s largely indecipherable Reply brief, the
Plaintiff appears to argue, yet again, that the Court should
grant a new temporary restraining order.

These arguments are

simply recycled from previous motions and lack merit.
The Court has considered and ruled on the merits of the
Plaintiff’s Complaint on multiple occasions.

The Plaintiff’s

Motion to Vacate offers nothing that would cause the Court to
reverse the Court’s September 16, 2009 Order of Dismissal.

The

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate is DENIED.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s “NOTICE OF MOTION TO PLAINTIFF-PRO SE’S MOTION
TO VACATE SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AM. MOTION
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
& SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 JUDGMENT” (Doc. 105), filed on November 18,
2011 is DENIED.

8

The case is CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 31, 2012, Honolulu, Hawaii.

/S/ Helen Gillmor
Helen Gillmor
United States District Judge

PATSY N. SAKUMA v. ASSOCIATION OF CONDOMINIUM HOME OWNERS OF THE
TROPICS AT WAIKELE, et al.; Civ. No. 08-00502 HG-KSC; ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 16,
2010 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9