Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Roeca Luria
-
Response | Filed: May 31, 2024 | Entered: May 31, 2024 Spriestersbach v. State of Hawaii
Civil Rights: Other | Hawaii
Additional Exhibits
SEALED EXHIBIT "A" [re: 439 Defendants Office of the Public Defender, Nietzsche Lynn Tolan, Michele Muraoka, Lesley Maloian, Jason Baker, and Seth Patek's Motion for LEave to File Exhibit "A," Discovery Designated as Confidential and Under Stipulated Protective Order Referenced in 438 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff Joshua Spriestersbach's Motion to Compel Responses from Public Defender Defendants filed on April 30, 2024 - filed by Jason Baker, Lesley Maloian, Michelle Muraoka, Office of The Public Defender, Seth Patek, Nietzsche Lynn Tolan. SEALED pursuant to ECF No. 467 Order on Motion to Seal Document. (eta) (eta).
-
Order | Filed: May 31, 2024 | Entered: May 31, 2024 Spriestersbach v. State of Hawaii
Civil Rights: Other | Hawaii
Order on Motion to Seal Document
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, NIETZSCHE LYNN TOLAN, MICHELE MURAOKA, LESLEY MALOIAN, JASON BAKER, SETH PATEK'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBIT "A," DISCOVERY DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL AND UNDER STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REFERENCED IN MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF JOSHUA SPRIESTERSBACH'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES FROM PUBLIC DEFENDER DEFENDANTS FILED ON APRIL 30, 2024 re 439 - Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER on 5/31/2024. (eta)
-
Minutes | Filed: May 31, 2024 | Entered: May 31, 2024 Powell v. State of Hawaii et al
Civil Rights: Other | Hawaii
Link Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
EO: On 4/18/2024, pro se Plaintiff Joseph Powell III ("Plaintiff") filed [ECF 63 ] Motion for Reimbursement Pursuant to FRCP Rule 4(d)(2) ("Motion"). In his Motion, Plaintiff contends that on 2/20/2024, he mailed Defendants Annie Reinecke, Christina Satyo Dosland, Davelyn Tengan, Malama Family Recovery Center and Judge James R. Rouse (collectively, "Defendants") a waiver-of-service form, but each failed to timely respond, and thus, Plaintiff was required to incur fees and costs in serving each by a process server. ECF No. 63 at PageID.605-606. Plaintiff now seeks an order directing Defendants to reimburse him for the fees and costs associated with having each of these Defendants served. Id.
Plaintiff filed his [ECF 54 ] Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on 1/10/2024, which is the operative complaint. That same day, the Clerks Office issued a [ECF 55 ] Summons as to all defendants, including the five (5) Defendants from whom Plaintiff seeks reimbursement. Notably absent from the docket, however, are any entries verifying Plaintiffs claim that he in fact, mailed a waiver of service form to each of the Defendants on 2/20/2024. Other than the [ECF [63-1]] Declaration of Service included as part of the instant Motion, Plaintiff does not provide any documentation concerning the documents transmitted, such as a copy of the waiver form, much less, any documentation that the waiver-of-service forms were actually delivered to or received by Defendants. ECF No. 63-1. In particular, Plaintiff fails to provide the certified mail return receipt request forms which would confirm delivery. Moreover, even if it is true that some or all defendants refused to waive service, this means that Plaintiff is required to properly serve each of those defendants in accordance with FRCP 4. After service is made, if Plaintiff seeks reimbursement under FRCP 4(d)(2), it is Plaintiffs burden as the movant to establish that each defendant indeed refused to waive service. Plaintiff must then establish that Plaintiff incurred the cost of serving those defendants and each of those defendants should be given an opportunity to respond to the Motion.
In this case, according to the [ECF 54 ] SAC, defendant Judge James R. Rouse is sued in both his individual and official capacity. ECF No. 54 at PageID.490. On 4/29/2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service claiming to have served defendant Judge James R. Rouse. However, the Courts review of this summons shows that defendant Judge James R. Rouse was not properly served in accordance to FRCP 4. In addition, the docket reflects that defendant Judge James R. Rouse in fact waived service on 5/2/2024. ECF No. 70. Because the docket reflects that service was not properly made and that defendant Judge James R. Rouse waived service, the Motion is DENIED as it relates to Defendant Judge James R. Rouse.
As it pertains to defendants Annie Reinecke and Christina Satyo Dosland, both are being sued in their individual and official capacities. ECF No. 54 at PageID.490. Plaintiff has failed to file any proof of service of the summons and SAC on the docket for these two defendants. However, Plaintiff attached to the Motion a copy of an unfiled proof of service indicating that defendant Annie Reinecke was served on 4/8/2024. Regardless, there is no evidence that these two defendants were properly served even if the proof of service as to defendant Annie Reinecke had been filed. Despite this lack of service, defendants Annie Reinecke and Christina Satyo Dosland made an appearance when they filed their [ECF 67 ] Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. These facts show that even though defendants Annie Reinecke and Christina Satyo Dosland were not properly served, they appeared to defend in this case. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED as it relates to defendants Annie Reinecke and Christina Satyo Dosland.
Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement for serving defendant Davelyn Tengan; however, there is no evidence that defendant Davelyn Tengan was properly served. Plaintiff agai... (truncated)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login