Skip to main content

SAKUMA v. LLP LLP (2021)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Patsy N. SAKUMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF THE TROPICS AT WAIKELE, an incorporated association, by its board of directors; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Love, Yamamoto & Revere, LLP, a limited liability law partnership; Yamamoto & Revere, LLP, a liability law partnership, Defendants.

No. 19-16615

Decided: January 26, 2021

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Patsy N. Sakuma, Pro Se Matt Tsukazaki, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Li & Tsukazaki, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee Association of Apartment Owners of the Tropics At Waikele Janelle Mae Fong Lau, Esquire, Attorney, Motooka & Rosenberg, LLLC, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee Milton M. Motooka, Motooka Yamamoto & Revere, LLP Christopher Tanega Goodin, Esquire, Attorney, Peter William Olson, Attorney, Cades Schutte LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee Porter McGuire Kiakona & Chow, LLP Robyn B. Chun, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGHI - Office of the Hawaii Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee James S. Kometani Jonathan W. Y. Lai, Esquire, Attorney, Watanabe Ing LLP, Honolulu, HI, Defendant-Appellee Watanabe Ing, LLP, Association of Condominum Homeowners of Tropics At Waikele Leta Huang Price, Legal Counsel, Title Guaranty of Hawaii, Inc., Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee Title Guaranty Escrow Services, Inc.


Patsy N. Sakuma appeals pro se from the district court's post-judgment orders in her action alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sakuma's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment, or by denying leave to file a motion for reconsideration, because Sakuma failed to demonstrate any basis for the requested relief. See id. (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 59(e) or 60(b)); see also Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1102-04 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that Rule 60(b)(6) relief may be granted only where extraordinary circumstances are present).

We do not consider Sakuma's contentions concerning her prior appeal (Case No. 16-16791).

Sakuma's request for judicial notice, set forth in her opening brief, is denied as unnecessary.


Copied to clipboard