Lang v. Laubach et al
| shanel-marie Lang |
| Michelle Kanani Laubach in her private and official capacity, As employed by The State of HAWAII, a Corporation, And/or it's subsidiaries with DnB #'s (redacted) doing business as M. KAUNANI LAUBACH, Kelden B.A. Waltjen in his private and official capacity, As employed by The State of HAWAII, a Corporation, And/or it's subsidiaries with DnB #'s (redacted) doing business as KELDON WALTJEN, Brittny Marino in her private and official capacity, As employed by The State of HAWAII, a Corporation, And/or it's subsidiaries with DnB #'s (redacted) doing business as BRITTNY MARINO, Lea C. Cooper in her private and official capacity, As employed by The State of HAWAII, a Corporation, And/or it's subsidiaries with DnB #'s (redacted) doing business as LEA COOPER, Jonathan Rapoza in his private and official capacity, As employed by The State of HAWAII, a Corporation, And/or it's subsidiaries with DnB #'s (redacted) doing business as J. RAPOZA and Jerome Duarte in his private and official capacity, As employed by The State of HAWAII, a Corporation, And/or it's subsidiaries with DnB #'s (redacted) doing business as J. DUARTE |
| 1:2024cv00245 |
| June 7, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| JILL A OTAKE |
| ROM TRADER |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 7, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 CIVIL Waiver of Service Packet - Notice to Parties Regarding Service Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Attachments: #1 Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons, #2 Waiver of the Service of Summons)(jni) |
Filing 4
Order Setting Telephonic Rule 16 Scheduling Conference is set for 09:00AM on 8/5/2024 before MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 6/7/2024. COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants shall be served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the (NEF) on 6/10/2024. Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF). (jni)
|
| Filing 3 EO: On 6/7/2024, pro se Plaintiff filed a Complaint titled: "Jurisdiction Court of Law Petition and Request for Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Petition for Declaratory Judgement & Verified Claim for Damages." To the extent Plaintiff, through her Complaint, seeks a temporary restraining order ("TRO") pursuant to Rule 65(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see ECF No. 1 at 21, it is DENIED without prejudice. First, there is no evidence Plaintiff served Defendants with the Complaint and summons or filed a waiver of service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. See Montalvo v. Diaz, 2019 WL 1242445, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019); Segovia v. Wilmington Fin., 2015 WL 12697083, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015). Until service is effected or waivers of service are obtained and filed, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. See Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987); Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982). And the Court "may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court... [t]he district court must... tailor the injunction to affect only those persons over which it has power." Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). Second, under Rule 65(b)(1), the Court may issue a TRO without notice to an adverse partyas Plaintiff requests here, see ECF No. 1 at 21only if: "(A) specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Plaintiff has not demonstrated her request falls within the extremely limited circumstances contemplated by Rule 65(b)(1). See Reno Air Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (identifying two circumstances where ex parte TROs are proper: 1) "notice to the adverse party is impossible either because the identity of the adverse party is unknown or because a known party cannot be located in time for a hearing" and 2) "notice to the defendant would render fruitless the further prosecution of the action," and with respect to the latter, a plaintiff "must show that [the] defendants would have disregarded a direct court order and disposed of the goods within the time it would take for a hearing... [and] must support such assertions by showing that the adverse party has a history of disposing of evidence or violating court orders or that persons similar to the adverse party have such a history"). Plaintiff did not submit either a verified complaint or an affidavit. Although she is proceeding pro se, she also does not appear to indicate whether she attempted to notify Defendants that she is seeking this emergency relief, or why she should not be required to do so. See ECF No. 1 at 21 (requesting a TRO be issued "without notice" but not explaining why she is entitled to that extraordinary relief). Although the Complaint is somewhat confusing, the Court gathers that Plaintiff is a defendant in a criminal matter pending in Hawai'i state court that is set for trial on Monday, June 10, 2024 wherein the Defendants in this action are the police officers and prosecutors involved with her arrest and prosecution, as well as the state court judge presiding over that action in the Third Circuit Court. Particularly given that context, where Plaintiff presumably has a means to notify Defendants of this request seeking to enjoin a trial that is apparently set to begin in three days, Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing that she need not notify Defendants of this request. Finally, even assuming Plaintiff was not required to provide notice to Defendants, her Complaint does not demonstrate that she has met her burden to obtain emergency injunctive relief under Rule 65. See Chamber of Com. of the U.S. v. Bonta, 62 F.4th 473, 481 (9th Cir. 2023) (requiring moving party establish (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) that the balance of harm tips in the movants favor, and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest). Because the primary emergency relief Plaintiff seeks is a request to enjoin an ongoing state criminal proceedingthat appears to be set for trial in a few daysshe cannot demonstrate she is likely to succeed on the merits as to that specific request. See Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 76566 (9th Cir. 2018). Under the Younger abstention doctrine, a federal court may not interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings, absent certain exceptions. See id. Based on the bare allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint related to this emergency requestwhich, again, ask the Court to enjoin a state court judge from proceeding with any further hearings involving Plaintiffthe Court cannot conclude Plaintiff has demonstrated any extraordinary circumstances that would render Younger abstention inapplicable. See id. While Plaintiff also makes reference to a request to enjoin Defendants from kidnapping her or taking her property, the allegations in the Complaint do not support that she is at imminent risk of irreparable injury absent an order from the Court enjoining Defendants from that conduct. For all these reasons, Plaintiff's request for a TRO is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will not entertain any further motions for injunctive relief until Plaintiff has properly served Defendants or obtained and filed waivers of service pursuant to Rule 4. (JUDGE JILL A. OTAKE)(afe)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). Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF) |
| Filing 2 Filing fee received: $ 405.00, Receipt number Pay.gov Tracking ID: 27F3R267 re #1 Complaint. (jni) |
| Filing 1 Jurisdiction - COURT OF LAW PETITION AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT [sic] & VERIFIED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES; TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED against Lea C. Cooper, Jerome Duarte, Michelle Kanani Laubach, Brittny Marino, Jonathan Rapoza, Kelden B.A. Waltjen - filed by shanel-marie Lang. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jni) |
| COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of #5 Civil Waiver of Service Packet, shall be served by First Class Mail to shanel-marie Lang at the address of record on the Notice of Electronic Filing on 6/10/2024. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (jni) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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
| Search for this case: Lang v. Laubach et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: shanel-marie Lang | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Michelle Kanani Laubach in her private and official capacity, As employed by The State of HAWAII, a Corporation, And/or it's subsidiaries with DnB #'s (redacted) doing business as M. KAUNANI LAUBACH | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Kelden B.A. Waltjen in his private and official capacity, As employed by The State of HAWAII, a Corporation, And/or it's subsidiaries with DnB #'s (redacted) doing business as KELDON WALTJEN | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Brittny Marino in her private and official capacity, As employed by The State of HAWAII, a Corporation, And/or it's subsidiaries with DnB #'s (redacted) doing business as BRITTNY MARINO | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Lea C. Cooper in her private and official capacity, As employed by The State of HAWAII, a Corporation, And/or it's subsidiaries with DnB #'s (redacted) doing business as LEA COOPER | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Jonathan Rapoza in his private and official capacity, As employed by The State of HAWAII, a Corporation, And/or it's subsidiaries with DnB #'s (redacted) doing business as J. RAPOZA | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Jerome Duarte in his private and official capacity, As employed by The State of HAWAII, a Corporation, And/or it's subsidiaries with DnB #'s (redacted) doing business as J. DUARTE | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
