Mather et al v. First Hawaiian Bank et al
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REASSIGN CASE re 14 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 11/20/2014. "In all future proceedings, this case shall be referred to as Civil No. 14-00429 SOM/RLP. Defendants' ; motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13, is set for hearing before this judge on January 12, 2015, at 11:15. The court, of course, reserves the right to decide the matter without a hearing, if appropriate." (Motion terminated : 14 MOTION To Relate And Reassign Case Pursuant to Civil L.R. 40.2 filed by David Y. Nakashima, Jonathan W.Y. Lai, First Hawaiian Bank. 13 MOTION to Dismiss "First Amended Original Petition, Complaint and Clai m Under Authority of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1964(A)&(C) - Racketeering" Filed September 29, 2014 [Doc. 5] With Prejudice set for 1/12/2015 11:15 AM before CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY.) (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC EParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Diane Mather served by first class mail at the address of record on November 21, 2014.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
DIANE E. MATHER, individually
and as trustee of the
HANA2008 LIVING TRUST and the
VIOLET BLACK TRUST,
FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK, a Hawaii )
CIVIL NO. 14-00429 SOM/RLP
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REASSIGN CASE
Defendant First Hawaiian Bank lent Plaintiff Diane E.
Mather $686,000 and extended a line of credit to her of up to
These loans were secured by mortgages on property
located on Dole Street, in Honolulu, Hawaii.
defaulted on these loans, First Hawaiian Bank filed a state-court
The state court granted summary judgment in
favor of First Hawaiian Bank, issued a decree of foreclosure, and
certified its ruling pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Hawaii Rules
of Civil Procedure.
A court-appointed commissioner sold the Dole
Street property at public auction, and the state court issued a
deficiency judgment against Mather.
Mather did not appeal any of
the state court’s rulings or judgments.
In Civil No. 14-00091 SOM/RLP filed here in federal
court, Mather attempted to undo and unwind the state-court orders
and judgments, adding claims against David Nakashima and Jonathan
Lai, the attorneys who represented First Hawaiian Bank in the
On September 15, 2014, final judgment
was entered in that federal case.
On September 18, 2014, Mather
sought relief from that final judgment, asking in part for leave
to file another amended complaint asserting a claim under 18
U.S.C. § 1964.
That motion was denied on September 18, 2014.
Mather did not file a timely appeal in the earlier
Instead, on September 26, 2014, Mather filed a new case,
asserting the claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1964 against First Hawaiian
Bank, Nakashima, and Lai that she had asked to be allowed to file
in the previous case.
On November 5, 2014, Mather clarified that
the new action involves the same property, same loan, and same
Defendants as the earlier action.
Because the cases are related,
the new case should properly be adjudicated by the same judge,
who is familiar with the facts of the case.
to reassign the case, ECF No. 14, is therefore granted and the
case is assigned to this judge, over Mather’s objection.
Magistrate Judge Puglisi shall remain the Magistrate Judge
assigned to this case
In all future proceedings, this case shall be referred
to as Civil No. 14-00429 SOM/RLP.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss,
ECF No. 13, is set for hearing before this judge on January 12,
2015, at 11:15.
The court, of course, reserves the right to
decide the matter without a hearing, if appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 20, 2014
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge
Mather, et al. v. First Hawaiian Bank, CIVIL NO. 14-00429 SOM/RLP; ORDER
GRANTING MOTION TO REASSIGN CASE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?