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.

Rucker v. Air Ventures Hawaii, LLC

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

December 6, 2017

KATRINA RUCKER, Plaintiff,
v.
AIR VENTURES HAWAII, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AIR VENTURES HAWAII, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 149) WITH PREJUDICE

          HELEN GILLMOR, UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

         In September 2016, Plaintiff Katrina Rucker filed a lawsuit against Defendant Air Ventures Hawaii, LLC. Plaintiff alleges she went on an airplane sight-seeing tour operated by the Defendant and hit her head on the door of the plane when entering. Plaintiff claims Defendant was negligent and seeks damages.

         Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Proceedings have been ongoing for more than fourteen months. Plaintiff has continually failed to follow both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the District of Hawaii throughout the proceedings.

         Plaintiff has filed more than ten frivolous Motions and made numerous subpoena requests in violation of the rules. Plaintiff has been monetarily sanctioned for failure to follow the applicable rules and has not paid the sanction. Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with Court orders and delayed proceedings.

         Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for Plaintiff's consistent failure to comply with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court's orders.

         Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 149) is GRANTED.

         Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On September 6, 2016, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1).

         The next day, on September 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed an AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ECF No. 6).

         On September 16, 2016, the District Court issued a Deficiency Order as Plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fee or file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepayment of Fees. (ECF No. 7).

         On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff paid the filing fee. (ECF No. 8).

         On the same date, Plaintiff filed a MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT. (ECF No. 9).

         Also on October 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Plaintiff to Use PACER and ECF/Electronic Filing System. (ECF No. 10).

         On October 6, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Minute Order denying Plaintiff's request to file documents using the electronic filing system. (ECF No. 12).

         On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY. (ECF No. 14).

         On October 27, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY. (ECF No. 16).

         On November 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S UNAVAILABILITY DATES DUE TO SURGERY. (ECF No. 20).

         On November 18, 2016, the Parties filed a CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (ECF No. 23).

         On December 6, 2016, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to File an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 26). The Magistrate Judge granted the Motion. Plaintiff was given leave until December 13, 2016 to file her Second Amended Complaint. (Id.)

         Plaintiff did not file her Second Amended Complaint by December 13, 2016.

         On December 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion to Amend Complaint. (ECF No. 34).

         On December 21, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Minute Order denying Plaintiff's Second Motion to Amend Complaint. (ECF No. 35). The Magistrate Judge extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file her Second Amended Complaint to December 27, 2016. (Id.)

         On December 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed her SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ECF No. 36).

         On January 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a MOTION TO CANCEL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND ALL ATTEMPTS AT MEDIATION. (ECF No. 38).

         On the same date, the Magistrate Judge issued a Minute Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Cancel Settlement Conference and All Attempts at Mediation. (ECF No. 37). The Magistrate Judge permitted Plaintiff to appear by telephone at the settlement conference set for January 23, 2017. (Id.)

         On January 23, 2017, the Parties appeared at a settlement conference. (ECF No. 41). A settlement was not reached. (Id.)

         On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a MOTION TO FREEZE DEFENDANT'S ASSETS. (ECF No. 51).

         On the same date, Plaintiff filed a MOTION FOR THE USE OF ONLY KING'S ENGLISH DURING TRIAL AND DEPOSITIONS. (ECF No. 52).

         On March 8, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Minute Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Freeze Defendant's Assets and Plaintiff's Motion for the Use of Only King's English During Trial and Depositions. (ECF No. 53).

         On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed the following motions:

(1) MOTION FOR DEPOSITION TRANSPARENCY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 54);
(2) MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE (ECF No. 55);
(3) 2nd MOTION TO FREEZE DEFENDANT'S ASSETS (ECF No. 56);
(4) MOTION FOR JUDGE AND CLERK TRANSPARENCY (ECF No. 57).

         On March 13, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued the following orders:

(1) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEPOSITION TRANSPARENCY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 59);
(2) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE (ECF No. 61);
(3) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO FREEZE DEFENDANT'S ASSETS (ECF No. 62); and,
(4) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGE AND CLERK TRANSPARENCY. (ECF No. 60).

         Also on March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “MOTION FOR TEMPORARY ORDERS IMMEDIATELY HOLDING ALL DEPOSITIONS AND ALL SUBPOENAS AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING WITH ORAL ARGUMENTS.” (ECF No. 63).

         On the same date, the Magistrate Judge issued a Minute Order construing Plaintiff's filing as a Motion to Stay Discovery. (ECF No. 64). The Magistrate Judge set a status conference on Plaintiff's Motion for March 15, 2017. (ECF Nos. 64, 65). The Parties were permitted to appear at the status conference by telephone. (Id.)

         On March 15, 2017, the Magistrate Judge held a Status Conference. (ECF No. 66). The Magistrate Judge called Plaintiff twice at the telephone number she provided and she did not answer. (Id.) Following the hearing, the Magistrate Judge set a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Discovery for May 5, 2017. (ECF No. 67).

         On March 18, 2017, Plaintiff sent letters to the Magistrate Judge accusing employees of the Clerk's Office of discrimination, abuse of power, and failure to provide specific reasons for declining ...


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.