Choi v. Consulate General of Japan
Filing
24
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Statement Of Claim And Complaint. "On May 13, 2018, the court received a letter from Choi that the cour t construes as a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 23 . The letter insists that the FSIA does not apply to Choi's case, that the courts decision should [have been] made solely on the basis of the [Universal Postal Convention], andthat the Jap anese Consulate must be held responsible for the breach of this treaty. Id. at PageID #s 192-94. Choi's motion for reconsideration fails to explain why these conclusions were incorrect. Nor does Choi address the courts determination that she lac ked Article III standing to sue. The court therefore does not reconsider its decision dismissing Choi's claims against the Consulate General. Insofar as Choi's letter is as a motion for reconsideration, it is DENIED. Choi need not file an A mended Complaint if she does not wish to do so. However, in light of Choi's pro se status, the court extends the filing deadline for any Amended Complaint to June 15, 2018." Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 5/15/2018. (cib, )COURTS CERTIFICATE of Service - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
HYE JA CHOI,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CONSULATE GENNERAL OF JAPAN
)
IN HONOLULU (JAPAN
)
GOVERNMENT),
)
)
Defendant.
_____________________________ )
Civ. No. 18-00051 SOM-RLP
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND
COMPLAINT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND COMPLAINT
I.
THE COURT DENIES CHOI’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
On April 25, 2018, the Court filed an order dismissing
Hye Ja Choi’s claims against the Consulate General of Japan with
prejudice.
ECF No. 21.
The Court explained that the Consulate
General was entitled to sovereign immunity under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), and further explained that
Choi had failed to establish Article III standing to sue.
See
id. at PageID #s 172-84.
On May 13, 2018, the court received a letter from Choi
that the court construes as a motion for reconsideration.
No. 23.
ECF
The letter insists that the FSIA “does not apply” to
Choi’s case, that the court’s decision “should [have been] made
solely on the basis of the [Universal Postal Convention],” and
that “the Japanese Consulate” must be held responsible for “the
breach of this treaty.”
Id. at PageID #s 192-94.
The court has already considered and rejected each of
these arguments.
In the prior order, the court explained that
the FSIA applies to every action against a foreign state-including one based on an alleged treaty violation--because the
FSIA is “the ‘sole basis’ upon which jurisdiction may be
obtained over a foreign state.”
ECF No. 21, PageID # 176
(quoting Barapind v. Gov’t of Republic of India, 844 F.3d 824,
829 (9th Cir. 2016)).
The court held that the Consulate General
was entitled to sovereign immunity under the FSIA.
PageID # 183.
See id. at
The court observed the Universal Postal
Convention did not alter its FSIA analysis; that document did
not “suggest[] that Japan ‘intended the [Convention] to be
enforceable in United States courts.’”
Id. at PageID #s 177-78.
Choi’s motion for reconsideration fails to explain why
these conclusions were incorrect.
Nor does Choi address the
court’s determination that she lacked Article III standing to
sue.
The court therefore does not reconsider its decision
dismissing Choi’s claims against the Consulate General.
Insofar
as Choi’s letter is as a motion for reconsideration, it is
DENIED.
2
II.
THE COURT DOES NOT VIEW CHOI’S LETTER AS AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT.
In its prior order, the court instructed Choi that she
could file an Amended Complaint asserting similar claims against
a different defendant if she wished to do so.
#s 187-88.
See id. at PageID
Choi’s letter might be indicating her intent to add
Japan Post Holdings Co. (“Japan Post”) as an additional
defendant.
See ECF No. 23, PageID # 194 (“If the judge claims
the defendant[s] change, the plaintiff will change it as
follows,” and then listing Japan Post’s name and contact
information alongside the Consulate General’s name).
But Choi’s
letter is not actually styled as an Amended Complaint against
Japan Post.
As the court explained in its prior order, any
Amended Complaint must be complete in itself and not simply
incorporate by reference anything previously filed with the
court.
Choi’s letter, which contains no factual allegations
concerning Japan Post, falls far short of this requirement.
The
court also explained that any Amended Complaint must clearly set
forth a basis for federal jurisdiction.
Choi’s letter fails to
do so with respect to any defendant.
Choi need not file an Amended Complaint if she does
not wish to do so.
However, in light of Choi’s pro se status,
the court extends the filing deadline for any Amended Complaint
to June 15, 2018.
Any Amended Complain may not name the
3
Consulate General of Japan as a defendant, and must proceed
solely against a different defendant or defendants.
If Choi
does not timely file an Amended Complaint, this action will be
automatically dismissed.
If Choi chooses to file an Amended Complaint, then, as
noted, she must allege facts demonstrating that federal
jurisdiction is appropriate.
If Choi decides to sue Japan Post,
then, if Choi’s jurisdictional hook is the FSIA, she must allege
facts indicating that Japan Post is an “agency or
instrumentality” of Japan.
28 U.S.C. § 1603(b)(2)).
See ECF No. 21, PageID # 184 (citing
But see id. at PageID #s 185-86
(explaining that materials cited in prior filings indicate that
Japan Post is not an agency or instrumentality of Japan).
If
the FSIA does not apply, Choi must direct the court to another
source of federal jurisdiction.
But see id. at PageID # 186
(explaining that “serious jurisdictional questions would be
raised” “[i]f Japan Post is not an agency or instrumentality of
Japan”).
The failure to comply with any of the above
requirements will result in the dismissal of any Amended
Complaint.
Any Amended Complaint will ultimately need to be
served by Choi on all named defendants in accordance with Rule 4
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4
If a defendant is a
foreign state or its political subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality, it must be served in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1608.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 15, 2018.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge
Hye Ja Choi v. Consulate Genneral of Japan in Honolulu (Japan
Government), Civ. No. 18-00051 SOM-RLP; ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND
COMPLAINT.
5
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?