Choi v. JTB Hawaii Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
HYEJA CHOI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JTB HAWAII INC.; TACHIBANA
ENTERPRISES LLC; JTB HAWAII
TRAVEL LLC; TRAVEL PLAZA
TRANSPORTATION LLC; JOYE
MIZUNO; TERUKO YOSHIDA; REIKO
MAESHIRO; MAKIKO NEALE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 26-00160 HG-KJM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 10)
On July 29, 2025, the Hawaii State Circuit Court issued an
order designating Plaintiff Choi as a vexatious litigant.
On March 30, 2026, Plaintiff Choi, proceeding pro se, filed
a Complaint in the United States District Court. (ECF No. 1).
The Complaint requested that this Court review the Hawaii State
Court vexatious litigant order against her. (Id.) Plaintiff’s
Complaint claimed that the State Court vexatious litigant order
violated her Constitutional rights. (Id.)
On April 15, 2026, this Court issued an ORDER DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. (ECF No. 8). The Court ruled that
Plaintiff Choi’s Complaint was barred by the Rooker-Feldman
1
Case 1:26-cv-00160-HG-KJM Document 11 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

doctrine. The Order explained that the Federal Court cannot act
as an appellate court to the State Court system. The Court
denied leave to amend because any amendment would be futile.
On April 15, 2026, Judgment was entered. (ECF No. 9).
On May 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. (ECF No. 10).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration does not present any
new or previously unavailable law or evidence. The Motion does
not present any error of fact or law in the Court’s April 15,
2026 Order. Reconsideration is not warranted.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 10) is
DENIED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for reconsideration filed within twenty-eight days
of entry of judgment is considered a motion filed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Rishor v. Ferguson, 822
F.3d 482, 489-90 (9th Cir. 2016). The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals has set forth the following grounds justifying
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e):
(1) If such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors
of law or fact upon which the judgment rests;
(2) If such motion is necessary to present newly discovered
or previously unavailable evidence;
(3) If such motion is necessary to prevent manifest
injustice; or,
2
Case 1:26-cv-00160-HG-KJM Document 11 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

(4) If an amendment to the judgment is justified by an
intervening change in controlling law.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir.
2011). There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances
warranting reconsideration. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnt.,
Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). The
decision to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound
discretion of the district court. Kona Enterprises, Inc. v.
Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000).
ANALYSIS
The Court construes the pleading liberally because Plaintiff
is proceeding pro se. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137
(9th Cir. 1987).
Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Motion does not
establish grounds to justify reconsideration pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Plaintiff presents no new or previously unavailable law or
evidence in support of her Motion to Reconsider.
Plaintiff argues that the Hawaii State Court vexatious
litigant order against her is unconstitutional and asks that this
Court review the Order.
As the Court explained in the April 15, 2026 dismissal
order, Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine even if Plaintiff claims that the Hawaii State
3
Case 1:26-cv-00160-HG-KJM Document 11 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

Court vexatious litigant order is unconstitutional. Mothershed
v. Justs. of the Sup. Ct., 410 F.3d 602, 606 (9th Cir. 2005)
(citing Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); D.C.
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486–87 (1983)).
Federal District Courts lack jurisdiction to review
challenges to state court decisions, even if the federal lawsuit
alleges that the state court’s action was unconstitutional, as
those challenges may only be reviewed by the United States
Supreme Court. Mothershed, 410 F.3d at 607. As-applied
constitutional claims are also barred because they constitute de
facto appeals of state court decisions. Scheer v. Kelly, 817
F.3d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir. 2016).
Leave to amend was not warranted because any amendment would
be futile. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d
1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff has not identified any error of law or fact, any
newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, any change
in law, or any other circumstance that would require
reconsideration of this matter. Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at
1111. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s April 15, 2026
order is not a basis for reconsideration. White v. Sabatino, 424
F.Supp.2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006).
In her Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff also requests
that her filing fee be returned. Filing fees for initiating a
4
Case 1:26-cv-00160-HG-KJM Document 11 Filed 05/20/26 Page 4 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

lawsuit in the Federal District Court are authorized by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914 and are part of the costs of litigation. Federal District
Courts have routinely ruled that there is no authority to refund
a filing fee after the plaintiff initiates litigation, even if
the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the case. Duclairon v. LGBTQ
Commn., 2018 WL 5085754, *1 (D. Or. Oct. 17, 2018); Grindling v.
Martone, Civ. No. 12-00361 LEK-BMK, 2012 WL 4502954, *1-*2 (D.
Haw. Sept. 28, 2012). The Court has expended significant
resources in issuing two written orders in this case. Plaintiff
is not entitled to a return of her filing fee.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF NO. 10) is DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close the case.
Except for a Notice of Appeal, no further filings in this
case will be accepted by the District Court without prior
permission of the District Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 20, 2026.
Hyeja Choi v. JTB Hawaii Inc.; Tachibana Enterprises LLC; JTB
Hawaii Travel LLC; Travel Plaza Transportation LLC; Joye Mizuno;
Teruko Yoshida; Reiko Maeshiro; Makiko Neale, Civ. No. 26-00160
HG-KJM; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF
No. 10) 5
Case 1:26-cv-00160-HG-KJM Document 11 Filed 05/20/26 Page 5 of 5
PageID.<pageID>