Semper v. Hawaii Life Real Estate Services, LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII JEHAN SEMPER, ) Civ. No. 24-00211 HG-WRP ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) HAWAII LIFE REAL ESTATE ) SERVICES, LLC, DBA HAWAII ) LIFE REAL ESTATE BROKERS; ) JOHN REEDER; JEANNA RIMMER; ) ROY VANDOORN; SAVIO REALTY ) LTD; ALLAN B. KROLL; ) JEANMARIE R. THEINE; ) MACARTHUR & COMPANY INC, DBA ) VENTURE SOTHEBY'S ) INTERNATIONAL REALTY; KAREN ) SCHNEIDER; HANNAH KEA ) TRAINER; GEORGIA ) CALLAWAY; HANK CORREA ) REALTY, LLC; JOHN T. CORREA, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE, AS MODIFIED (ECF No. 45) and OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 46) I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 26, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued the Findings and Recommendation to (1) Grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and (2) Dismiss the Complaint with Leave to Amend. (ECF No. 34). 1 On July 29, 2024, before this Court had the opportunity to rule on the Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff Jehan Semper, proceeding pro se, filed an “Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 37) and a document titled “Plaintiff's First Affidavit Second Supplemental, Exh 1 Second Supplemental” (ECF No. 36). On July 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. (ECF No. 38). On September 17, 2024, the Court issued an Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation to (1) Grant Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and (2) Dismiss the Complaint with Leave to Amend, as Modified; Overruling Plaintiff’s Objection to the Findings and Recommendation; and Striking Plaintiff’s Nonconforming Pleadings (ECF No. 41). On September 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 42), a document titled “Plaintiff’s First Affidavit Second Supplemental, Exh 1 Second Supplemental” (ECF No. 43), and a document titled “Plaintiff’s Indigency and Health Affidavit” (ECF No. 44).

On September 25, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued the Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with Prejudice. (ECF No. 45). On September 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. (ECF No. 46). 2 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A magistrate judge may be assigned to prepare findings and recommendations for a district judge to determine matters pending before the court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Any party may object to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Local Rule 74.1(a). The objection must specifically designate the portions of the magistrate judge’s order or findings and recommendations to which the party is objecting and the basis for the objection. LR74.1(a). The district court must review de novo those portions of the magistrate's findings and recommendations to which an objection is made. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The portions to which

Plaintiff does not object are reviewed for clear error. Stow v. Murashige, 288 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1127 (D. Haw. 2003). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

III. ANALYSIS A. THE COURT ADOPTS THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 45) 3 The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 45) to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with Prejudice, with the following MODIFICATION: On page 2, line 4, REPLACE "various claims Defendants” with “various claims against Defendants”.

B. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION (ECF No. 46) IS OVERRULED Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with Prejudice. (ECF No. 46). The Court construes Plaintiff’s pro se filings liberally. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). Pro se litigants, however, must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. De Castro v. Yamasaki, No. CV 21-00273 HG-KJM, 2021 WL 6052271, at *3 (D. Haw. Dec. 21, 2021). Plaintiff’s Objection does not specifically designate the portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects and the basis of the objection as required by 28 U.S. Code § 636(b)(1)(C) and Hawaii Local Rule 74.1(a). Instead, Plaintiff objects generally to the judicial process and rules of procedure, alleging that the Findings and Recommendation: 1) fails to adequately consider Plaintiff’s facts, allegations, and evidence (ECF No. 46, p. 1); 2) fails to construe plaintiff’s pro se pleadings liberally enough (id.); 3) fails to consider the

4 additional documents filed by Plaintiff in determining the sufficiency of the First Amended Complaint (id. at p. 3); and 4) does not require Defendants to answer Plaintiff’s claims (id. at p. 4). Reviewing the Findings and Recommendation de novo, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s order clearly and correctly sets forth the applicable law and is supported by the record. For the reasons stated in the Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Objection is OVERRULED.

CONCLUSION It is hereby ordered and adjudged that, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 74.1, the Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff's First

Amended Complaint with Prejudice (ECF No. 45) is ADOPTED, AS MODIFIED, as the opinion and order of this Court. // // // // // // // // 5 Plaintiff’s Objection to the Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 46) is OVERRULED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 21, 2024

o mt 6 Mey = oe th Dee j ; ? nhs, ag 4, or ie af Helen Gillmor Unitéd States District Judge eee, oF wr

Jehan Semper v. Hawaii Life Real Estate Services, LLC, doa Hawaii Life Real Estate Brokers; John Reeder; Jeanna Rimmer; Roy Vandoorn; Savio Realty Ltd; Allan B. Kroll; Jeanmarie R. Theine; Macarthur & Company Inc, dba Venture Sotheby's International Realty; Karen Schneider; Hannah Kea Trainer; Georgia Callaway; Hank Correa Realty, LLC; John T. Correa; Civ. No. 24-00211 HG-WRP; ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE, AS MODIFIED (ECF NO. 45) and OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 46).