Sebetich v. Naki

• Court: District Court, D. Hawaii
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00514
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

VICTORIA M. SEBETICH CIVIL NO. 24-00514 JAO-RT

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO vs. DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ECF JAMES ROBERT NAKI, NO. 26

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 26 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Victoria M. Sebetich’s (“Plaintiff”) “Objection to Magistrates Report and Recommendation Denying Plaintiffs Request for Entry of Default & Motion for Default Judgment,” (“Objection”). ECF No. 27. For the following reasons the Court rejects Plaintiff’s Objection and ADOPTS the Findings & Recommendations (ECF No. 26). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff initiated this purported quiet title action against Defendant James Robert Naki (“Defendant”) on December 4, 2024. ECF No. 1. In January and March 2025, Magistrate Judge Rom Trader cautioned Plaintiff about failing to serve Defendant the Complaint, see ECF No. 10, and extended the deadline for service given Plaintiff’s pro se status, see ECF No. 11. In April and June 2025, Judge Trader again extended Plaintiff’s deadline for service. See ECF Nos. 13, 15. Eventually, Plaintiff filed a proof of service indicating that Plaintiff’s daughter

personally served Defendant on June 20, 2025. See ECF No. 17-2. Nineteen days after being served, Defendant filed his “Answer,” which appears to be an incomplete pro se form answer. See ECF No. 20; see also ECF No. 21 (Judge

Trader’s description of the answer). Two days later, on July 11, 2025, Plaintiff simultaneously filed a Request for Entry of Default, ECF No. 24, and a Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 25. On July 14, Judge Trader denied the Request for Entry of Default because

Defendant had timely filed an Answer, and recommended that the Court deny the Motion for Default Judgment because Plaintiff had not first secured entry of default. See ECF No. 26. Plaintiff filed her Objection the next day on July 15.

ECF No. 27. II. LEGAL STANDARD When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations, the district court must review de novo those portions to which the objections are

made and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Under a de novo standard, there is no deference to the lower court’s ruling; rather, the Court

“freely consider[s] the matter anew, as if no decision had been rendered below.” Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (quotations omitted); Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir.

2006). III. DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s objection is somewhat difficult to understand, but as she’s proceeding pro se, the Court will construe it liberally. First, she appears to argue

that Defendant has failed to timely plead because his Answer is incomplete. See ECF No. 27 at 4–5. But Judge Trader correctly observed that “Defendant filed his Answer 19 days after being served on 6/20/25, thus, his Answer, complete or

not, is timely filed.” ECF No. 26 (italics omitted). Because Defenant timely filed an answer, entry of default is inappropriate. To the extent Plaintiff is challenging the lack of content in the Answer, an entry of default is not the proper mechanism.1 Plaintiff then argues the merits of her case in urging the Court to reverse

Judge Trader’s denial of the Motion for Default Judgment. See ECF No. 27 at 7–8. Because she has not obtained entry of default, however, her Motion for Default

1 The Court notes that pleadings may be amended, meaning Defendant’s Answer may not be his final pleading on the matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Judgment is procedurally improper and must be denied. See Ramsey v. Hawaii, 2020 WL 5754010, at *1 (D. Haw. Sept. 2, 2020), report and recommendation adopted as modified, 2020 WL5753965 (D. Haw. Sept. 25, 2020) (citing Symantec Corp. v. Global Impact, Inc., 559 F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 2009)). The Court thus rejects Plaintiff's Objection and ADOPTS the Findings & Recommendations. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court rejects Plaintiff's Objection, ECF No. 27, and ADOPTS the Findings & Recommendations, ECF No. 26. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: — Honolulu, Hawai‘i, July 16, 2025.

gern, : at {ln — dof Jill A. Otake >> TQ United States District Judge re, a

CV 24-00514 JAO-RT, Sebetich v. Naki; ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ECF NO.