Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, RICO—D. Haw.: Consumer fails to state racketeering claim against First Hawaiian Bank, (May 17, 2016)

By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

The federal district court in Honolulu denied an individual’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the defendants in her Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) action because she did not show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. The court then dismissed her complaint for failing to state a claim for relief (Okawaki v. First Hawaiian Bank, May 16, 2016, Watson, D.).

The individual filed a complaint alleging that First Hawaiian Bank and other defendants were conspiring to commit an organized crime in violation of RICO. The basis for her complaint was that: (1) terrorists were beneficiaries of loans and received income from her trust without her permission; (2) First Hawaiian Bank employees were instructed to have her arrested for trespassing and bank robbery when she entered the bank; and (3) her more than 75 involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations due to the terrorists were a conspiracy to unlawfully imprison her in an ongoing illegal racketeering enterprise. She then filed a motion for a TRO that requested 24 hour/7 day a week U.S. Marshall escorts for protection from the defendants.

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a TRO because she made no showing of either a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.

In addition, the court determined that her complaint failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because it did not sufficiently plead any of the elements of a civil RICO claim.

Finally, the court determined that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because: (1) her complaint made no attempt to establish diversity jurisdiction; and (2) her conclusory allegations of federal racketeering and haphazard references to the United States Constitution were not sufficient to create a federal jurisdiction question.

Noting that, unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint.

The case is No: 16-00232 DKW-KSC.

Companies: First Hawaiian Bank; Community Empowerment Resources

Cases: RICO HawaiiNews