Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Edward P. KAKALIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of HAWAII; David Y. Ige, in his capacity of current Governor of The State of Hawaii, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Edward P. Kakalia appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising out of the alleged improper taking of land in Hawaii. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Kakalia's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the local action doctrine was proper because Kakalia's action concerned real property in Hawaii over which the district court in the Central District of California had no jurisdiction. See Eldee-K Rental Props., LLC v. DIRECTV, Inc., 748 F.3d 943, 946-47 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that under the local action doctrine, district courts generally have exclusive jurisdiction over actions to recover title or possession of property in the forum where that property is located).
In light of our disposition, we do not consider the parties’ remaining arguments regarding Eleventh Amendment immunity, the statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kakalia leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kakalia's motion for default judgment. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review and factors for determining whether to enter default judgment).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-55571
Decided: June 11, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)