Taylor v. Leu et al
| Sarah Margaret Taylor |
| Lester K. Leu, Andrew Lee, Leu Okuda & Doi, Pite Duncan LLP, Christian Fenton, Anna T. Valliente, David E. McAllester, Susan L. Fenton, State of Hawaii, The, Third Circuit Court, The, United States District Court, Wells Fargo, N.A., Assurant Specialty Property and U.S. Bank National Association |
| 1:2015cv00265 |
| July 14, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| Hawaii |
| KEVIN S.C. CHANG |
| SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY |
| Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
81
ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL QUESTION CLAIMS AND DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS re 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 51 - Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 9/9/2016. "Pursuant t o Local Rule 7.2(d), this court rules without a hearing on the motions to dismiss and joinders therein. The court grants the motions and joinders to the extent they seek dismissal of the federal question claims asserted in the Amended Complaint. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Taylor has had multiple chances to articulate a viable claim. Giving her further leave to amend her claims would be an exercise in futility. Accordingly, the court denies leave to file another amended complaint and orders the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and to close this case. The Clerk of Court is further ordered to send a copy of this order to Taylor via e-mail.&quo t; (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). Sarah Margaret Taylor shall be served via e-mail at peacepurpose@yahoo.com on September 9, 2016. Additionally, a hard copy of the order will be served by first class mail to Ms. Taylor at the address of record on September 9, 2016.
|
|
Filing
78
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 90-DAY CONTINUANCE AND TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO RESUBMIT CHARTS re 73 - Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 8/24/2016. "The court deems Taylor's filing on August 22, 2016, to be her supp lemental opposition to the motions to dismiss. Until the court rules on the motions to dismiss set for hearing on September 12, 2016, Taylor shall not file anything else with respect to the motions or her chart. If Taylor files anything else with r espect to the motions to dismiss or her chart, those filings will be disregarded. As set forth in the courts earlier order, Defendants may file supplemental reply memoranda with respect to the motions to dismiss and joinders therein no later t han September 1, 2016." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of E lectronic Filing (NEF). Sarah Margaret Taylor served via e-mail at peacepurpose@yahoo.com on August 24,2016. Additionally, a hard copy shall be mailed to Ms. Taylor at the address of record on August 25, 2016.
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIONS re 7 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 17 , 22 - Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 12/16/2015. " The court grants the motions and joinders and dismisses the Complaint without prejudice. The court grants Taylor leave to file an Amended Complaint. Because of Taylor's claimed disabilities, the court gives her an extended period of two months, until February 16, 2016, to fil e any Amended Complaint. Should Taylor fail to timely file an Amended Complaint, this action will be automatically terminated." "The court gathers from Taylor's submissions that communicating by United States mail pre sents physical difficulties for her. The court therefore permits Taylor to submit documents for filing by e-mail attachment sent to mollway_orders@hid.uscourts.gov. To be allowed to communicate electronically wi th the court, a litigant must first receive permission from the judge assigned to a case. See Local Rule 100.2.2(1). While Taylor is allowed to file documents via e-mail in this case, she must separately receive permission to do so in any o ther case in this court. E-mail may not be used by Taylor to engage in off-the-record or one-sided communication with the court. E-mail should be used only to submit materials that would otherwise be mailed to the court and served on opposing couns el and that are intended to be placed in the court file for this case. Permission to submit documents via e-mail may be rescinded by this court at any time for any reason, as this court is not aware of any requirement that it allow Taylor to com municate by e-mail. The court extends this accommodation to Taylor without announcing that Taylor has any right to e-mail her filings." "Taylor may contact the opposing attorneys about serving them and being served via e-mail.&q uot; A copy of this order will be sent to Taylor via e-mail." (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). Sarah Taylor served by e-mail at peacepurpose@yahoo.com (e-mail address referenced in docket entry 6 . Additionally, the Clerk's Office will serve Ms. Taylor by first class mail at the address of record on December 17, 2015.
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
