United States District Court, D. Hawaii
GRANTING (1) PORTER MCGUIRE KIAKONA & CHOW, LLP'S
MOTION TO DISMISS; (2) JAMES S. KOMETANI'S MOTION TO
DISMISS; (3) FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK AND WATANABE ING LLP'S
MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (4) MILTON M. MOTOOKA, MOTOOKA
YAMAMOTO & REVERE, LLP'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge
continuing effort to collaterally attack the state court
judicial foreclosure of her property, Plaintiff Patsy Naomi
Sakuma again brings claims against the entities and
individuals responsible for bringing that foreclosure about.
Although her First Amended Complaint is at times difficult to
decipher, Sakuma is evidently attempting to relitigate the
prior state court foreclosure of her property and related
actions, which both state and federal courts have already
addressed, several times over. Because this Court is without
the authority to re-open Sakuma's previously closed
cases, and because her current claims are barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, defendants' motions to
dismiss are GRANTED.
Overview Of Prior Litigation
about December 15, 1998, Sakuma entered into a Real Property
Mortgage and Financing Statement (“Mortgage”) and
Note to buy her home in the Tropics at Waikele, located at
94-1016 D Maiau Street, Waipahu, Hawaii 96797. The Mortgage
was recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances as Document No.
98-194762 on December 29, 1998. FAC ¶ 53.
has spent the last fifteen years litigating with various
defendants regarding the property. Excluding the present
action, there have been three federal lawsuits since 2001 in
which Sakuma and the Tropics entities have opposed one
another, including Sakuma v. AOAO Tropics at
Waikele, Civil No. 01-CV-00556 DAE BMK; Tropics at
Waikele v. Sakuma, Civil No. 02-00147 HG-LEK
(“2002 Removed Action”); and Sakuma v. AOAO
Tropics at Waikele, Civil No. 08-00502 HG-KSC. There
have been three additional state lawsuits, including AOAO
of Tropics at Waikele v. Sakuma, 1RC-05-1-006232;
Association of Homeowners of Tropics at Waikele v. Sakuma
et al., 1CC 07-1-00487 (“2007 Foreclosure
Action”); and First Hawaiian Bank v. Sakuma et
al., 1CC 11-1-001943.
Court briefly addresses this related prior litigation where
pertinent to Sakuma's current action.
2001 Federal Action
sued the AOAO Tropics at Waikele (“AOAO”); Love
Yamamoto & Motooka; and Hawaiiana Management Company over
a dispute relating to the property, purportedly for
“handicap discrimination” under the Fair Housing
Amendments of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3600 et seq.
and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
42 U.S.C. § 12131. See FAC Ex. GG (Docket Sheet
in Sakuma v. AOAO Tropics at Waikele, Civil No.
01-CV-00556 DAE-BMK). The 2001 federal action was dismissed
by stipulation and order on September 20, 2002 (Dkt. No. 53
in 01-CV-00556) together with another removed action
(02-CV-00147 HG-LEK). Sakuma thereafter moved to amend the
judgment (Dkt. Nos. 55 & 56 in 01-CV-00556). The district
court denied that motion and Sakuma filed a notice of appeal.
(Dkt. Nos. 68 & 69 in 01-CV-00556). After the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court (Dkt. No. 74 in
01-CV-00556), Sakuma filed another motion for relief from
final judgment in the district court on January 26, 2005
(Dkt. No. 76 in 01-CV-00556). The district court again denied
Sakuma's motion (Dkt. No. 93 in 01-CV-00556) and ordered
Sakuma to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed
(Dkt. No. 94 in 01-CV-00556). Sakuma appealed the district
court's order denying her motion for relief from final
judgment (Dkt. No. 103 in 01-CV-00556).
October 31, 2005, the district court imposed sanctions
against Sakuma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the
court's inherent power, and ordered her to pay to
defendants' attorneys their fees incurred as a result of
responding to Sakuma's motions (Dkt. Nos. 119 & 130
in 01-CV-00556). Sakuma appealed the award of attorneys'
fees and costs on May 31, 2006 (Dkt. No. 131 in 01-CV-00556).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on
December 12, 2006 (Dkt. No. 145 in 01-CV-00556). On June 25,
2007, the district court issued an order finding Sakuma in
civil contempt for failure to pay the attorneys' fees and
costs as previously ordered. (Dkt. No. 151 in 01-CV-00556).
Sakuma appealed the contempt order on July 24, 2007 (Dkt. No.
159 in 01-CV-00556), which was then dismissed by the Ninth
Circuit on January 14, 2009 (Dkt. No. 198 in 01-CV-00556).
September 5, 2007, Sakuma once again filed a motion for
relief from the judgment and final order, and a motion for
sanctions against defendants, their attorneys, and the
attorneys' law firms (Dkt. No. 169 in 01-CV-00556). On
September 27, 2007, the district court denied Sakuma's
motion and entered a contempt and pre-filing screening order,
directing as follows:
that Plaintiff, Patsy N. Sakuma, is permanently enjoined from
filing motions in the instant case, CV NO. 01-00556 DAE/BMK,
except to oppose the instant order of pre-filing screening,
with good faith arguments, within 10 days of its filing.
Subject to that limited exception, the Court shall screen all
of Plaintiff's attempted filings in the instant case to
determine whether they merit further review and whether they
are proper for filing. ORDERS that Plaintiff must immediately
comply with the Court's Contempt Order. . . . Upon
non-compliance, Defendants may move the Court to order
Plaintiff into custody until she complies or until further
order of the Court, pursuant to the Contempt Order. Plaintiff
may respond to such a motion, in good faith, if made.
Dkt. No. 172 in 01-CV-00556. Sakuma thereafter filed a motion
for reconsideration, which was denied (Dkt. Nos. 173 &
181 in 01-CV-00556), and a notice of appeal (Dkt. Nos. 183
& 186 in 01-CV-00556). The Ninth Circuit affirmed on
January 14, 2009 (Dkt. No. 198 in 01-CV-00556).
2002 Removed Action
2001, the AOAO sued Sakuma in state court (1RC-01-5514),
which Sakuma removed to this court on March 8, 2002, entitled
Tropics at Waikele v. Sakuma, Civil No. 02-00147
HG-LEK (“2002 Removed Action”). The case was
dismissed with prejudice by stipulation and order on October
1, 2002 (Dkt. No. 10 in 02-CV-00147). Sakuma filed a notice
of appeal on March 13, 2003, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed
the appeal on April 10, 2003 (Dkt. Nos. 11 & 15 in
2002 Removed Action was globally settled with the 2001
Federal Action, 01-CV-00556. According to Sakuma,
“because of material terms in conflict in the written
Release and the oral settlement, Sakuma did not sign the
Release.” FAC ¶ 58. She now alleges:
On or about October 1, 2002 the Removed Action was deemed
settled pursuant to a Stipulation Of Dismissal with prejudice
of all claims and parties as to the Complaint filed on August
16, 2001 as Civil No. 1RCOl-5514, which stipulation Sakuma
refused to sign and by order of Judge Helen [Gillmor] the
clerk of the court signed for Sakuma and for the release of
the 2001 Lien, as part of the global settlement with the Main
FAC ¶ 59.
the AOAO recorded a 2005 Notice of Lien for Unpaid
Assessments (“2005 Lien”) at the Bureau of
Conveyances (“BOC”) as Doc. 2005-0789021,
see FAC Ex. Q. In 2005, the AOAO filed an action
against Sakuma for unpaid homeowners fees, AOAO of
Tropics at Waikele v. Sakuma, 1RC-05-1-006232,
see FAC Ex. P, and judgment was granted in its favor
on March 1, 2007. FAC ¶ 63.
2007 Foreclosure Action
August 17, 2007, the Association of Condominium Homeowners of
Tropics at Waikele (“AOCH”) filed a judicial
foreclosure action against Sakuma in the First Circuit Court,
Civ. No. 07-1-1487 (“2007 Foreclosure Action”).
The 2007 Foreclosure Action generated at least three appeals:
CAAP No. 11-0000054, 12-0000145 and 12-0000870. FAC
¶¶ 64-65. On June 10, 2008, the Circuit Court
entered a decree of foreclosure (“2008 Decree of
Foreclosure”), and on January 22, 2009, denied
Sakuma's October 6, 2008 motion for reconsideration of
the court's September 23, 2008 order granting a motion to
sell without open house. The Circuit Court thereafter granted
the motion to confirm sale, and denied Sakuma's motion
for reconsideration on February 10, 2011. Sakuma's
subsequent appeals to the Intermediate Court of Appeals
(“ICA”) and Hawaii Supreme Court were dismissed
or affirmed in favor of the AOAO and/or AOCH. Most recently,
on January 21, 2016, the ICA issued a summary disposition
order dismissing Sakuma's third appeal as moot, and
denied Sakuma's motion for reconsideration on February 1,
2016. The ICA entered judgment on appeal on July 22, 2016 in
CAAP No. 12-000870.