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.

Matsuoka v. Mateo-Soto

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

January 13, 2020

MISATO MATSUOKA, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDRES M. MATEO-SOTO, Defendant. ANDRES M. MATEO-SOTO, Counter-Claimant,
v.
MISATO MATSUOKA, Counter-Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 11)

          HELEN GILLMOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Misato Matsuoka filed a four count complaint alleging state law tort claims based on an alleged sexual assault by Defendant/Counter-Claimant Andres M. Mateo-Soto.

         All four counts are governed by the two-year statute of limitations of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 657-7.

         Defendant/Counter-Claimant, appearing pro se, filed two documents which the Court interpreted as a Motion to Dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, and an Addendum.

         Defendant/Counter-Claimant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Complaint. (ECF No. 1).

         On October 21, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer and Counterclaim. (ECF Nos. 9, 10).

         On October 21, 2019, Defendant/Counter-Claimant filed a document entitled “Motion to Dismiss.” (ECF No. 11).

         On October 23, 2019, Defendant/Counter-Claimant filed a document entitled “Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.” On October 24, 2019, the Court issued an Order construing the filing as an Addendum to Defendant/Counter-Claimant's Motion to Dismiss. The Court warned Defendant/Counter-Claimant that future filings that failed to conform with Local and Federal Rules would be stricken. (ECF Nos. 13, 14).

         On October 25, 2019, Defendant/Counter-Claimant filed a document entitled “Slander” that he referred to as a “Counterclaim Addendum.” On October 29, 2019, the Court issued an Order striking the filing for failing to comply with both Local and Federal Rules. (ECF Nos. 15, 16).

         On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant filed an Answer to Defendant/Counter-Claimant's Counterclaim. (ECF No. 17).

         On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant filed PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S ANSWER, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT TO BE ADMITTED. (ECF No. 18).

         On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant filed PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO ...


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.