Levitz v. PNC Bank National Association

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION re #12 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 2/7/2024. (eta)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Samuel Noah Keoni Levitz has been served by First Class Mail to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on February 7, 2024.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
SAMUEL NOAH KEONI LEVITZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 24-cv-00024-DKW-KJM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.

On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff Samuel Noah Keoni Levitz (Plaintiff or
Levitz), proceeding without counsel, filed a Complaint against Defendant PNC
Bank National Association (Defendant or PNC) concerning, among other things,
an “attempted foreclosure” of real property Levitz allegedly “acquired” in Haleiwa,
Oahu (the Property). Dkt. No. 1. Within the Complaint, Levitz also moved for
an “emergency injunction” (motion for injunction), seeking to enjoin PNC from
“destroying evidence” and disposing of the Property.
On January, 23, 2024, the Court denied the motion for injunction because
Levitz failed to mention, let alone address, any of the factors relevant to
considering a request for immediate injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 10. On February
2, 2024, Levitz filed both an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 11, and a motion for
reconsideration of the January 23, 2024 Order, Dkt. No. 12.

The Court addresses the motion for reconsideration herein. In doing so, the
Court liberally construes the pro se motion. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007). However, the Court cannot act as counsel for a pro se litigant or
supply the essential elements of a claim. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004);
Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Pursuant to Local Rule 60.1, a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory
order, i.e., a non-dispositive order, such as the January 23, 2024 Order, may be
brought only upon the following three grounds: (1) discovery of new material facts
not previously available; (2) an intervening change in the law; or (3) manifest error
of law or fact.
Here, none of those grounds exist or are even mentioned in the motion for
reconsideration. Rather, as Levitz acknowledges, his original request for
injunctive relief contained “deficiencies” that required “correction….” Dkt. No.
12 at 1-2. In other words, any error(s) were of Levitz’s own making in his motion
for injunction, not in the Court’s January 23, 2024 Order.
Further, even if the Court were to accept the premise that the motion for
reconsideration (and the amended complaint) “correct[]” errors made in the motion
for injunction, the docket reflects that Plaintiff has yet to even file a proposed
summons in this case, let alone serve Defendant. Therefore, the motion for
2

reconsideration (like the motion for injunction) is ex parte, i.e., without notice to
Defendant. As such, it must comply with Local Rule 7.10 and, given that
injunctive relief is sought, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1). The motion
for reconsideration (like the motion for injunction), though, fails with respect to
both rules because, among other things, Plaintiff has not filed a declaration or
certified in writing why notice should not be required, nor has he described any
efforts made to give notice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1); Local Civil Rule 7.10. 1
The motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 12, is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2024 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge

Samuel Noah Keoni Levitz vs. PNC Bank National Association; Civil No. 2400024 DKW-KJM; ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

1

A copy of the Court’s Local Rules is available on the Court’s website at
https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/rules/local-rules.
3