Taitz v. Hawaiian Memorial Park Mortuary

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED - Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 12/23/13. Show Cause Response due by 1/10/2014. "Taitz may respond to this order to show cause in writing no later than January 10, 20 14. If the court receives no response by the deadline, the case will be automatically dismissed. Taitz may, of course, "moot out" this order to show cause by voluntarily dismissing the Complaint. If the court dismisses this action for lack of jurisdiction, no further order regarding the motion seekinginjunctive relief will issue. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to Hawaiian Memorial Park Mortuary, 45-425 Kamehameha Highway, Kaneohe, HI 96744." (emt, )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). A copy of this order shall be served to Orly Taitz at the address of record on December 24, 2013; a copy shall be served to Hawaiian Memorial Park Mortuary at 45-425 Kamehameha Highway, Kaneohe, HI 96744.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
CIVIL NO. 13-00708 SOM/KSC

ORLY TAITZ,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HAWAIIAN MEMORIAL PARK
)
MORTUARY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________ )

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff Orly Taitz, Esq.,
proceeding pro se, initiated this action.

Taitz, a resident of

California, sues Hawaiian Memorial Park Mortuary, seeking an
emergency injunction with respect to the burial or cremation of
Loretta Fuddy.

Other than allegations concerning other lawsuits

in which Taitz has sued Fuddy, Taitz fails to allege any facts
explaining why Taitz wants to enjoin the burial or cremation of
Fuddy.
Taitz appears to be relying on a single document to
serve as both the Complaint that commences this action and her
motion for injunctive relief.

On December 20, 2013, the day the

document was filed, the court denied Tatiz’s request for
emergency injunctive relief via a minute order.
order amplifies that minute order.
jurisdiction over this matter.

The present

The court appears to lack

The request for emergency

injunctive relief has accordingly been denied.

See Sierra Forest

Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[P]laintiffs
seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that (1) they are
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the
balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) a preliminary
injunction is in the public interest.”); G. v. Haw. Dep’t of
Human Servs., 2009 WL 2877597 (D. Haw. Sept. 4, 2009) (noting
that the standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is
identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.
“[W]hether or not the parties raise the issue, federal
courts are required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional issues
such as standing.”

D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538

F.d3 1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks, citation, and
alterations omitted).

Taitz is therefore ordered to show cause

why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.

Taitz is silent as to the citizenship of

Defendant, which appears to be a private entity, although Taitz
states that this action is brought pursuant to the court’s
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Even if Defendant

and Taitz are citizens of different jurisdictions, subject matter
jurisdiction appears to be lacking because Taitz seeks only an
injunction, not money damages.

Taitz is ordered to show cause

why the action should not be dismissed for failure to allege the
requisite amount in controversy for purposes of § 1332.

2

Taitz is also ordered to show cause why the action
should not be dismissed for lack of standing, as nothing she
alleges suggests that she has been personally harmed.

See San

Diego Cnty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th
Cir. 1996).

It cannot be the case that anyone curious about

someone’s cause of death may, in the absence of a cognizable
connection to the deceased or a law enforcement justification,
delay the deceased’s burial or cremation.
Taitz may respond to this order to show cause in
writing no later than January 10, 2014.

If the court receives no

response by the deadline, the case will be automatically
dismissed.

Taitz may, of course, “moot out” this order to show

cause by voluntarily dismissing the Complaint.
If the court dismisses this action for lack of
jurisdiction, no further order regarding the motion seeking
injunctive relief will issue.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this
Order to Hawaiian Memorial Park Mortuary, 45-425 Kamehameha
Highway, Kaneohe, HI 96744.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 23, 2013.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Orly Taitz v. Hawaiian Memorial Park Mortuary, Civil No. 13-00708 SOM/KSC, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

4