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.

Minichino v. Piilani Homeowners Association

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

December 2, 2016

MARIE MINICHINO, Plaintiff,
v.
PIILANI HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al ., Defendants.

          ORDER: (1) DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (2) DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION

          Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge.

         INTRODUCTION

         On November 1, 2016, Plaintiff Marie Minichino, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Injunction (Dkt. No. 24) and an Amended Complaint (“Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC”) (Dkt. No. 23) against Defendants Piilani Homeowners Association, Porter McGuire Kiakona & Chow, LLP, Commercial Properties Management, and Mary Jane Kramer. These filings represent Plaintiff's third attempt, in this proceeding alone, at enjoining either the foreclosure of, or her ejectment from, real property located in Kihei, Maui.

         Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction (Dkt. No. 24) is DENIED for the same reasons her previous “emergency” motions were denied-the absence of any merit to her claims, the absence of imminent or irreparable harm, and the equally absent interest of the public in issuing an injunction under the circumstances presented here. Indeed, because Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim, the only potential basis for this Court's jurisdiction is lacking. Since Plaintiff has already been afforded two opportunities to amend, and is evidently unable to state a valid claim despite these opportunities, the Court now DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

         BACKGROUD

         I. Factual Background

         Plaintiff, as the trustee of the Gaetano Trust, is the owner of a certain real property located at 214 Luakaha Circle, Kihei, Maui (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff's suit arises from the Piilani Village Homeowners Association (“Association”) fining Plaintiff for various violations of the Association's rules. Plaintiff disputes the validity of these fines and seeks a full accounting of them prior to the sale of, or her ejectment from, the Subject Property.

         II. Procedural Background

         On August 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, a motion for “Emergency Hearing, ” which the Court construed as a motion for a temporary restraining order (“First Motion for TRO”), and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs (“IFP Application”). Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. The following day, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for a temporary restraining order (“Second Motion for TRO”) and a motion for sanctions against certain defendants (“Motion for Sanctions”). Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff sought to enjoin the foreclosure of the Subject Property.[1] On August 22, 2016, the Court dismissed the Complaint because there was no evident basis for the Court's jurisdiction over this matter, but granted Plaintiff limited leave to amend. Dkt. No. 10. In the same August 22 Order, the Court denied the First and Second Motions for TRO, IFP Application, and Motion for Sanctions as moot. Id.

         On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion (Dkt. No. 11) and an Amended Motion to add Defendants (Dkt. No. 13). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs (“Second IFP Application”) (Dkt. No. 19), followed by an Amended Complaint (“First Amended Complaint”) (Dkt. No. 21). On September 30, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff's Second IFP Application. Dkt. No. 22. Because Plaintiff once again failed to meet the standard required for emergency injunctive relief, the Court denied Plaintiff's Emergency Motion. Id. The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint because she failed to state a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., but once again granted limited leave to amend. Id.

         On November 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed: (1) a Motion for Injunction (Dkt. No. 24); and (2) a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 23). Plaintiff's SAC is not a model of clarity. The SAC does not enumerate causes of action, but generally alleges throughout the pleading violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Trade Commission Act based on the fines imposed by the Association, and the efforts of the Defendants to collect those fines. Plaintiff also alleges that there were “numerous bankruptcy stay violations, ” including Defendants' mailing notices of fines and setting new sale dates for the Subject Property while Plaintiff was allegedly protected by automatic bankruptcy stays. Finally, Plaintiff alleges various state law claims, including fraud and misrepresentation.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction is Denied

         Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction repeats the same arguments included in her previous two motions for injunctive relief, and she provides no persuasive argument as to why the Court ...


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.