Filed: Oct. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION FOLEY, Presiding Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ. Upon review of (1) Howard Hofelich's appeal from the Honorable Ronald Ibarra's July 30, 2010 "Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Sua Sponte Order Dismissing the Claim Against Defendant Carl Vincenti" (the July 30, 2010 interlocutory order), and (2) the record on appeal, it appears that we do not have jurisdiction over Appeal No. 30658 because the July 30, 2010 order is not an
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION FOLEY, Presiding Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ. Upon review of (1) Howard Hofelich's appeal from the Honorable Ronald Ibarra's July 30, 2010 "Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Sua Sponte Order Dismissing the Claim Against Defendant Carl Vincenti" (the July 30, 2010 interlocutory order), and (2) the record on appeal, it appears that we do not have jurisdiction over Appeal No. 30658 because the July 30, 2010 order is not an ..
More
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
FOLEY, Presiding Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ.
Upon review of (1) Howard Hofelich's appeal from the Honorable Ronald Ibarra's July 30, 2010 "Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Sua Sponte Order Dismissing the Claim Against Defendant Carl Vincenti" (the July 30, 2010 interlocutory order), and (2) the record on appeal, it appears that we do not have jurisdiction over Appeal No. 30658 because the July 30, 2010 order is not an independently appealable order under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a) (1993 & Supp. 2009).1 HRS § 641-1(a) authorizes appeals to the intermediate court of appeals from final judgments, orders, or decrees. Appeals under HRS § 641-1 "shall be taken in the manner. . . provided by the rules of the court." HRS § 641-1(c). Rule 58 of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) specifically requires that "[e]very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document." (Emphasis added.) Based on this requirement, the supreme court has held that "[a]n appeal may be taken. . . only after the orders have been reduced to a judgment and the judgment has been entered in favor of and against the appropriate parties pursuant to HRCP [Rule] 58[.]" Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Haw. 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1134, 1338 (1994). The separate judgment must "either resolve all claims against all parties or contain the finding necessary for certification under HRCP [Rule] 54(b)." Id. "An appeal from an order that is not reduced to a judgment in favor or against the party by the time the record is filed in the supreme court will be dismissed." Id. at 120, 869 P.2d at 1339 (footnote omitted). Consequently, "an order disposing of a circuit court case is appealable when the order is reduced to a separate judgment." Alford v. City and Count of Honolulu, 109 Haw. 14, 20, 122 P.3d 809, 815 (2005) (citation omitted; emphasis added).
On October 5, 2010, the appellate court clerk filed the record on appeal for Appeal No. 30658, at which time there was no separate and final judgment in the record on appeal for this case. Absent a separate and final judgment, this appeal is premature and this court lacks jurisdiction.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellate court case number 30658 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
