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.

Taylor v. Leu

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

August 24, 2016

SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
LESTER K LEU; ANDREW LEE; LEU OKUDA & DOI; PITE DUNCAN, LLP; ANNA T. VALLIENTE; DAVID E. McALLESTER; CHRISTIAN FENTON; SUSAN FENTON; STATE OF HAWAII; THIRD CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII; WELLS FARGO, NA, aka AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY; ASSURANT SPECIALTY PROPERTY, aka WELLS FARGO NA AS STORM INSURER; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATE, SERIES 2006-NC1 Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 90-DAY CONTINUANCE AND TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO RESUBMIT CHARTS

          SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION.

         This case arises out of an ongoing state-court foreclosure proceeding. On December 17, 2015, the court dismissed the original Complaint in this matter, giving Plaintiff Sarah Margaret Taylor an extended period of two months to file an Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 23.

         Taylor lives on the Big Island. Because Taylor indicated that disabilities made it difficult for her to send materials to this court through the United States Postal Service, and because she has not been trained to use the court's electronic filing system, the court issued an order permitting Taylor to file documents with the court via e-mail sent to mollwayorders@hid.uscourts.gov. Id. This was a special accommodation fashioned to allow Taylor to communicate with the court, which is located on the island of Oahu.

         On February 17, 2016, Taylor sent the court a series of e-mails, which the court deemed to be her Amended Complaint. See ECF Nos. 25, 28-33. Although Taylor appeared to include as Defendants all persons and entities having anything to do with a state-court foreclosure proceeding, she did not clearly identify who was being sued and for what.

         On March 2 and 8, 2016, three motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint were filed. See ECF Nos. 43, 44, and 47. Notices of the hearing for these motions were sent to Taylor via the e-mail address she had earlier provided to the court, as requested by Taylor. See ECF Nos. 45, 48. Joinders to the motions were filed and set for hearing at the same time as the motions. See ECF Nos. 46, 49-52. On April 8, 2016, the court continued the hearing on the motions and joinders to June 14, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. See ECF No. 54. The court sent a copy of the continuance notice to Taylor via her e-mail address. Id.

         Following oral argument on June 14, 2016, the court ordered Taylor to clarify her Amended Complaint by filling out and filing a chart. The order stated that any claim not identified in the chart would be deemed waived. See Order Requiring a More Definite Statement. ECF No. 57. With respect to any claim identified in the chart, Taylor was ordered to include in her chart the paragraph number of the Amended Complaint in which she had given Defendants notice of the claim. Id.

         Taylor filed her multi-page chart on July 12, 2016. See ECF Nos. 65-67. Defendants were allowed to file supplemental memoranda in light of Taylor's chart no later than August 1, 2016. Taylor had until August 19, 2016, to file a supplemental opposition memorandum. Defendants were then allowed to file reply memoranda no later than September 1, 2016. See ECF No. 57.

         Two months after the court had ordered Taylor to file her chart and had given her the August 19 deadline for filing, Taylor sent the court via e-mail the present motion, which seeks a 90-day extension of that deadline and leave to file new charts. See ECF Nos. 73-77. The motion is denied.

         II.ANALYSIS.

         A. This Judge Continues to Decline to Recuse Herself From This Action.

         In the court's order dismissing the original Complaint, the court noted that Taylor had named the United States District Court as a Defendant. This judge therefore examined whether she had to recuse herself from the case, declining to do so. See ECF No. 23. The court stated:

Because no reasonable judge would consider Taylor's claim against the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii to be viable in its present form, it makes no sense for this judge to recuse at this time. Should Taylor amend her Complaint to assert a potentially viable claim against the United States District ...

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.