Horowitz v. Sulla
| Decision Date | 14 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil NO. 13-00500 HG-BMK |
| Parties | LEONARD G. HOROWITZ; SHERRI KANE, Plaintiffs, v. PAUL J. SULLA, JR.; SKY OF HAWAII AYAHUASCA CHURCH; JASON HESTER; JASON HESTER, OVERSEER REVITALIZE, A GOSPEL OF BELIEVERS; HERBERT M. RITKE; RONN RITKE; PHILLIP CAREY; LINCOLN S.T. ASHIDA; COUNTY OF HAWAII; JOHN DOES 1-100; STATE OF HAWAII; Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
and
and
On October 1, 2013, Plaintiffs Leonard G. Horowitz and Sherri Kane, appearing pro se, filed a 158-page document entitled "VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES" with 545 pages of exhibits attached. The filing is difficult to decipher. Plaintiffs appear to be attempting to allege various claims connected to a transaction for land located on the Big Island of Hawaii. Plaintiffs claim they own the Big Island property. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have illegally attempted to obtain the property on behalf of a competing religious organization. Plaintiffs' filing contains a long list of ongoing disagreements they have with the various Defendants dating back to at least 2003.
Review of the Complaint revealed no discernable federal cause of action and no basis for diversity jurisdiction. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages Should Not Be Dismissed For Lack of Federal Jurisdiction. Defendants State of Hawaii, County of Hawaii, Lincoln S.T. Ashida, and Paul J. Sulla, Jr. filed Motions to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The following Motions to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by Defendants ARE GRANTED:
The following motions ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT:
The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On October 1, 2013, Plaintiffs Leonard G. Horowitz and Sherri Kane filed a document entitled "VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES." (ECF No. 1).
On October 18, 2013, Defendant State of Hawaii filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4).
S.T. Ashida filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 11).
On October 24, 2013, Defendant Paul J. Sulla, Jr. filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 15).
Also on October 24, 2013, Defendants Phillip Carey, Jason Hester, and Jason Hester as Overseer for Revitalize, a Gospel of Believers filed Substantive Joinders to Paul J. Sulla, Jr.'s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 16, 17).
On October 30, 2013, the Court issued an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION. (ECF No. 18).
On November 27, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to the Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 24).
On January 7, 2014, Defendant Paul J. Sulla, Jr. filed a Response to Plaintiffs' Reply to the Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 43).
On October 18, 2013, Defendant Ronn Ritke filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 10).
On November 19, 2013, Defendant Herbert M. Ritke filed aMotion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 20).
On December 11, 2013, Defendant Ronn Ritke filed additional Motions to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 36, 37).
On December 27, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a document entitled (ECF No. 40).
All Motions other than the ones challenging only subject matter jurisdiction were held in abeyance until the question of jurisdiction was resolved. (ECF Nos. 18, 22, 39, 42).
There has been no filing indicating that Sky of Hawaii Ayahuasca Church has been served, nor has it appeared. The 120-day period for service of the Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), has expired.
The Court elected to decide the matter without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d).
The Court has had great difficulty in attempting to discern Plaintiffs' Complaint. The Complaint concerns a longstanding dispute between religious groups over property located on the Big Island of Hawaii. Plaintiff Leonard G. Horowitz claims that he purchased the property in 2004 on behalf of a religious communitynamed "The Royal Bloodline of David." (Complaint at Ex. 7, p. 74, ECF No. 1).
The property has been the subject of various legal proceedings including a judicial foreclosure, a nonjudicial foreclosure, and an eviction proceeding.
Plaintiffs assert that they own the Big Island property and use it for religious purposes. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to illegally obtain the property for a competing religious organization with the name "Revitalize, a Gospel of Believers." Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Paul J. Sulla, Jr., Jason Hester, and Phillip Carey continue to harass them.
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants Lincoln S.T. Ashida, County of Hawaii, and State of Hawaii have failed to enforce the laws and protect Plaintiffs' property rights.
In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated a number of federal and state criminal statutes. (Complaint at 6-9, ECF No. 1). The Complaint asserts that the Defendants committed a number of torts against Plaintiffs in their attempts to obtain the disputed Big Island property. (Id. at 24, 29).
Plaintiffs attached numerous filings from state court proceedings to the Complaint. The filings include a judicial foreclosure action filed on behalf of Revitalize, A Gospel ofBelievers against Plaintiff Horowitz and The Royal Bloodline of David. (See Exhibit 1 at pp. 1-16 attached to the Complaint, ECF No. 1). Foreclosure was requested on the basis that The Royal Bloodline of David failed to provide property insurance. (Id.)
The action proceeded before Judge Ronald Ibarra in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit State of Hawaii, Case Civil No. 05-1-196. The most recent appeal from an order of Judge Ibarra was dismissed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawaii. Jason Hester, et al v. Leonard George Horowitz, et al, 2014 WL 321964, *1 (Haw. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2014) ().
Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred on federal courts either through diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or through federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).
Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the amount incontroversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). The burden of establishing that diversity jurisdiction exists rests on the party asserting it. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96-97 (2010).
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction without specific constitutional or statutory authorization. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). A party invoking the federal court's jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the Court lacks a constitutional or statutory basis to adjudicate the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 975 (9th Cir. 2012). Where the Court does not have federal subject matter jurisdiction, claims may be dismissed sua sponte. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
A challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction may be "facial or factual." Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In a facial attack, the party challenging jurisdiction argues that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient "on their face" to invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. A facial challenge, therefore, mirrors a traditional motion to dismiss analysis. The Court must take all allegations contained in the pleading "to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in [its] favor." Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004).
A plaintiff properly invokes federal question jurisdiction by pleading a "colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). A claim is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial