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 DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1) WITH PREJUDICE
On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff Hyeja Choi filed a complaint in
the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, 1CCV-25-
0000576, against Defendants JTB Hawaii Inc.; Tachibana
Enterprises LLC; JTB Hawaii Travel LLC; Travel Plaza
Transportation LLC; Joye Mizuno; Teruko Yoshida; Reiko Maeshiro;
and Makiko Neale.
On July 29, 2025, the Hawaii State Circuit Court issued an
order designating Plaintiff Choi as a vexatious litigant.
On January 26, 2026, the Hawaii State Circuit Court entered
judgment in favor of Defendants.
On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to
the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals.
On March 30, 2026, Plaintiff Choi filed this Complaint in
1
Case 1:26-cv-00160-HG-KJM Document 8 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

the United States District Court, requesting that this Court
review the Hawaii State Court vexatious litigant order against
her.
Plaintiff Choi’s Complaint filed in Federal Court is barred
by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Federal Court cannot act as
an appellate court to the State Court system.
The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Courts are obligated to consider subject-matter jurisdiction
sua sponte even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v.
Tahler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) requires that a case must be dismissed for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the Court lacks a
constitutional or statutory basis to adjudicate the controversy.
Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 975
(9th Cir. 2012).
A challenge to the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction may
be “facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d
1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). A facial challenge mirrors a
traditional motion to dismiss analysis. The Court must take all
allegations contained in the pleading “to be true and draw all
reasonable inferences in [its] favor.” Wolfe v. Strankman, 392
F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004).
2
Case 1:26-cv-00160-HG-KJM Document 8 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, because Plaintiff Choi is proceeding
pro se, the Court construes the pleadings liberally. Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
I. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Bars Federal Court Review Of
State Court Decisions
Pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts are
without subject-matter jurisdiction to review state court
decisions. 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 are barred from exercising
jurisdiction over direct appeals of state court decisions and any
de facto equivalent of such an appeal. Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d
772, 777 (9th Cir. 2012). A de facto appeal is found when the
plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal wrong
allegedly committed by the state court and seeks relief from the
judgment of the state court. Id. at 778.
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
3
Case 1:26-cv-00160-HG-KJM Document 8 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

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).
II. Plaintiff Choi’s Complaint Is Barred By The Rooker-Feldman
Doctrine
Plaintiff Choi filed a Complaint in this Court seeking to
review of a decision by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit,
State of Hawaii, in 1CCV-25-0000576. Here, Plaintiff Choi seeks
review of the Hawaii Circuit Court decision that designated her
as a vexatious litigant. (See Complaint at ¶¶ 6-10, 13-15, 17,
19-23, ECF No. 1).
This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Hawaii State
Court’s decision. Mothershed, 410 F.3d at 607. The Court is
also precluded from reviewing Plaintiff Choi’s constitutional
challenges to the manner in which the Hawaii State Court
conducted its proceedings. Scheer, 817 F.3d at 1186.
The Court declines to give Plaintiff leave to amend as it is
clear that any attempt to amend would be futile as her claims
would suffer from the same defects pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th
Cir. 2004); see Gonsalves v. Judge Morikone, Civ. No. 25-00058
DKW-WRP, 2025 WL 524396, at *2 (D. Haw. Feb. 18, 2025).
4
Case 1:26-cv-00160-HG-KJM Document 8 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to enter Judgment in favor of
Defendants and CLOSE THE CASE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 15, 2026, Honolulu, Hawaii.
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 DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1) WITH PREJUDICE
5
Case 1:26-cv-00160-HG-KJM Document 8 Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 5
PageID.<pageID>