Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Herbert J. Namohala v. Stuart Maeda

November 30, 2012

HERBERT J. NAMOHALA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
STUART MAEDA, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Michael Seabright United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LISA TONG'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON AUGUST 31, 2012, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LISA TONG'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON AUGUST 31, 2012, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Herbert J. Namohala ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, asserts that various Defendants*fn1 violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by engaging in a conspiracy to wrongfully accuse and ultimately charge Plaintiff with felony second degree theft. In a March 23, 2012 Order, the court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the State of Hawaii, the CPS, and the DCCA, and limited Plaintiff's claims against DCCA employee Lisa Tong ("Tong") to a damages claim against her in her individual capacity and/or a claim seeking injunctive relief. Doc. No. 36.

Currently before the court is Defendant Lisa Tong's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint against her on the basis that it fails to state a cognizable claim against her. Based on the following, the court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss, with leave for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

As alleged in the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), on March 5, 2009, Mitsuya Maeda hired Plaintiff to clean the windows and replace window and door screens in her home for $3,900. Doc. No. 70, FAC ¶ 9. Plaintiff had nearly completed the work when Stuart Maeda, Mitsuya Maeda's son, demanded that Plaintiff stop all work and refund Mitsuya Maeda's money. Id. ¶ 10. After Plaintiff refused, Stuart Maeda threatened that he would file a lawsuit and use his government connections (Stuart Maeda works at CPS) to "make sure that his complaint would 'get out everywhere including the media.'" Id.

On June 22, 2010, Plaintiff was summoned to the Hawaii County police station, where he was interviewed by Officer Carter. Officer Carter explained that he had enough evidence from Mitsuya and Stuart Maeda to place Plaintiff under arrest for felony second degree theft. Id. ¶ 11. According to Plaintiff, there was no evidence to charge Plaintiff with a crime and Officer Carter had "every intention to arrest Plaintiff no matter what was said or what documents were provided." Id. Officers Medeiros and Mahuna were also aware of Plaintiff's arrest and "condoned it even though there was not [sic] facts to support Plaintiff being arrested." Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff asserts that his arrest for a crime he did not commit is a conspiracy between Stuart and Mitsuya Maeda; Officers Carter, Medeiros, and Mahuna; and Tong. Id. ¶ 13.

As to Tong in particular, the FAC asserts that she: was employed with the [DCCA], and all times relevant, used her position to act in a conspiratorially [sic] with the above Defendants to violate [sic] by falsely accusing Plaintiff of a crime that he did not commit. At all times relevant, had [sic] the authority to stop the deliberate violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights but refused to do so, wherein said Defendant's malicious intent to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights, and acted in a conspiratorially [sic] with other named defendants within this cause of action.

Id. ¶ 8. The FAC further asserts that Tong "was charging Plaintiff with not providing a written notice which was untrue. Such actions were nothing more than [Tong] to violate Plaintiff's right in falsely accusing him of a crime and/or

violation that Plaintiff never committed. This was in conjunction with Plaintiff being falsely charged with a crime." Id. ¶ 15.

Finally, the FAC asserts that as a result of Defendants' various actions, the Tribune Herald released information regarding Plaintiff's arrest, which was "slanderous, malicious and defamatory[,] casting negative aspersions upon Plaintiff by the detectives of the [HCPD]." Id. ¶ 16.

The FAC seeks "injunctive relief that prohibits each Defendant, their superiors and/or subordinates and/or other employees from retaliating against the Plaintiff for exercising his constitutional rights," as well as ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.