Kahapea v. Haw. State Fed. Credit Union

• Decision Date: 20 September 2021
• Docket Number: CIV. 20-00281 LEK-KJM
• Parties: RONNIE KAHAPEA, Petitioner, v. HAWAII STATE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, ET AL., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

RONNIE KAHAPEA, Petitioner, v. HAWAII STATE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, ET AL., Respondents.

CIV. No. 20-00281 LEK-KJM

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

September 20, 2021

ORDER DISMISSING, FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.

On June 10, 2020, pro se Petitioner Ronnie Kahapea (“Kahapea”) filed a Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Motion to Confirm”), seeking an order confirming a Final Arbitration Award issued in his favor by Sitcomm Arbitration Association (“Sitcomm”) on July 18, 2019 (“Award”). [Dkt. no 1.^[1] The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.1(c) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Kahapea's Motion to Confirm is hereby dismissed because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Further, even if it had subject matter jurisdiction, this Court would conclude that Kahapea is not entitled to confirmation of the Award because he failed to establish the existence of a valid and binding arbitration agreement.

BACKGROUND

The arbitration proceedings between Kahapea and Respondents Hawaii State Federal Credit Union (“HSFCU”), Bank of America (“BANA”), ^[2] and Dave Smith Motors (“DSM” and, collectively “Respondents”) were purportedly presided over in Laurel, Mississippi by Sandra Goulette as the “Arbitrator” and Alden Bennett as the “Committee Member.” [Motion to Confirm, dkt. no 1-2 (Award) at PageID #: 23-24.] The arbitration proceedings were initiated with a dispute resolution complaint submitted on June 14, 2019. [Id. at PageID #: 25, ¶ 2.]

The Award noted that “[t]he Respondent(s) in a related action have made a claim against [Kahapea] of this instant matter related to [Kahapea]'s interests and/or properties.” [Id. at PageID #: 25, ¶ 4.] According to State of Hawai`i Judiciary records, HSFCU filed the following against Kahapea in the State of Hawai`i District Court of the Third Circuit Court, Puna Division (“state court”):

-a complaint seeking to recover $26, 148.04, representing the unpaid principal on a line of credit loan, with interest and late charges; see Haw. State Fed. Credit Union v Kahapea, 3DCR-19-0000219 (“Line of Credit Action”), filed 10/30/19 (dkt. no. 1); and

-a complaint seeking to recover $24, 020.36, representing the unpaid principal on an auto loan and security agreement, with interest and late charges, see Haw. State Fed. Credit Union v. Kahapea, 3DCR-19-0000289 (“Auto Loan Action”), filed 11/13/19 (dkt. no. 1).

The state court granted summary judgment in favor of HSFCU in both actions. See Line of Credit Action, Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant Filed January 13, 2020, filed 4/22/20 (dkt. no. 66); Auto Loan Action, Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant Filed January 13, 2020, filed 4/22/20 (dkt. no. 61).

Prior to the submission of Kahapea's dispute resolution complaint to Sitcomm, Kahapea sent HSFCU a document, dated March 31, 2019, and titled “Conditional Acceptance for Value and Counter Offer/Claim for Proof of Claim and Tender of Payment Offering” (“Conditional Acceptance”). [Motion to Confirm, dkt. no. 1-1 (Conditional Acceptance) at PageID #: 7.] Kahapea stated he had an agreement with BANA, “the original lender[, ]” and he was conditionally accepting an unspecified offer of new terms by HSFCU, but he demanded that HSFCU provide a proof of claim. [Id.] Included within Kahapea's Conditional Acceptance was an “Equitable Remittance Coupon” that purported to constitute payment of $100, 000 to HSFCU. [Id. at PageID #: 8.] Kahapea asserted the coupon could be presented for redemption “to the United States Treasury Department or at any Federal Reserve bank to include any Federal Reserve member banks” and he asserted that he was “tender[ing] payment for the referenced obligation of debt[.]” [Id.] The collateral identification number associated with the coupon was the same as the vehicle identification number of the vehicle at issue in the Auto Loan Action. Compare Id. with Auto Loan Action, Complaint at Continuation Sheet to Complaint.

Kahapea asserted the Conditional Acceptance

supersedes and predates as well as replaces any and all prior agreements between the parties, and is binding on all parties and irrevocable, and the parties agreed to the terms and conditions of this agreement upon default of the defaulting party as of the date of the default, that the value of this agreement is $100, 000.00 (ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS), the amount demanded is $44, 000.00 (FORTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS).

[Motion to Confirm, dkt. no. 1-1 (Conditional Acceptance) at PageID #: 9 (emphases in original).] He also stated:

Should the Respondent(s) fail or otherwise refuse to provide the requested and necessary Proof of Claims raised herein above within the expressed period of time established and set herein above, Respondent(s) agree that they will have failed to State any claim upon which relief can be granted. Further, Respondent(s) will have agreed and consented through “tacit acquiescence” to ALL the facts in relation to the above referenced alleged Commercial/Civil/Cause, as raised herein above as Proof of Claims herein; and ALL facts necessarily and of consequence arising there from, are true as they operate in favor of the Undersigned, and that said facts shall stand as prima facie and ultimate (unrefutable) between the parties to this Conditional Acceptance binding contractual agreement coupled with interests for Value and counter offer/claim for Proof of Claim, the corporate Government juridical construct(s) Respondent(s) represents/serves, and ALL officers, agents, employees, assigns, and the like in service to Respondent(s), as being undisputed. . . .

[Id. at PageID #: 10 (emphasis in original).] The Conditional Acceptance also stated it

constitutes an agreement of all interested parties in the event of a default and acceptance through silence/failure to respond when a request for summary disposition of any claims or particular issue may be requested and decided by the arbitrator, and the parties agree that the policies and procedures of SAA (THE SITCOMM ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION) whereas a designated arbitrator shall be chosen at random, who is duly authorized, and in the event of any physical or mental incapacity to act as arbitrator, the Undersigned shall retain the authority to select any neutral(s)/arbitrator(s) that qualify pursuant to the common law right to arbitration, as the arbitration process is a private remedy decided upon between the parties, and with respects this agreement, the defaulting party waives any and all rights, services, notices, and consents to the undersigned and or the undersigned's representative selection of the arbitrator thereby constituting agreement, and any controversy or claim arising out of or relating in any way to this Agreement or with regard to its formation, interpretation or breach, and any issues of substantive or procedural arbitrability shall be settled by arbitration, and the arbitrator may hear and decide the controversy upon evidence produced, and not based on personal opinion, legalese, legal terminology, legal technicalities, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations, but within the scope of this herein agreement according to its terms and conditions, and must do so even if and or although a party who was duly notified of the arbitration proceeding did not appear; that the Undersigned deems necessary to enforce the “good faith” of ALL parties hereto within without respect to venue, jurisdiction, law, and forum the Undersigned deems appropriate.

[Id. at PageID #: 11-12 (emphasis in original).]

The Arbitrator referred to the Conditional Acceptance as “a written, self-executing, binding, irrevocable, contractual agreement coupled with interests, for the complete resolution of their misconvictions and other conflicts respecting their previous relationship.” [Motion to Confirm, dkt. no. 1-2 (Award) at PageID #: 27, ¶ 18.] The Arbitrator found that Respondents' failure to respond to the Conditional Acceptance constituted a default and an affirmation of “the truth and validity of said facts set” forth in the Conditional Acceptance. [Id. at PageID #: 28, ¶ 22.] The Arbitrator found that, in addition to the agreement in the Conditional Acceptance, Kahapea and “the parties had a pre-established relationship which placed an obligation on each to communicate with the other[, ]” and Respondents “made changes to the original agreement which permitted and allowed [Kahapea] to present a counter offer and/or conditional acceptance of the offer to change the agreement to the Respondent(s).” [Id. at PageID #: 36, ¶¶ 45, a-c.] The Arbitrator awarded a total of $132, 000.00 to Kahapea, with Respondents each being responsible for $44, 000.00, based on their respective breaches of a contractual agreement with Kahapea. [Id. at ¶¶ 45.c-f.] The Arbitrator also ordered Respondents “to restore and release” to Kahapea his “corpus and ALL property currently under a ‘storage contract[.]'” [Id. at PageID #: 31, ¶ 29.] Although the Award does not contain an award of punitive damages, the Arbitrator stated that the issue of a punitive damages award could be revisited if Respondents failed to comply with the Award. [Id. at PageID #: 38, ¶ 51.]

Kahapea seeks to confirm the Award, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9. The Motion to Confirm asserts confirmation is warranted because the Award is proper in all respects, and Respondents have not sought to vacate, modify, or correct the Award, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11. BANA has appeared in this action and...