Malasek v. Nolen ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • NOT FOR PUBLICATION ]N WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPOR',I``S AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    NO. 28007
    lN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF HAWAFl wl
    VOJTECH MALASEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, V.
    JESSlCA NOLEN and ANTONIO ROLLY ORR,
    Defendants-Appellees
    §§ 11 111 e- arm max
    APPEAL FROM THE DlSTRlCT COURT OF THE THlRD CIRC
    SOUTH KOHALA DlVlSlON
    (ClVlL NO. 3RC 04-l-O7lH)
    ORDER DISMISSlNG APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURlSDlCTION
    (By: Fujise, Presiding Judge, Reifurth and Ginoza, JJ.)
    Upon review of the record in this case, it appears that
    we lack jurisdiction over Plaintiff-Appellant Vojtech Malasek's
    (Malasek) appeal of (1) the judgment entered February 1, 2006,
    by
    the District Court of the Third Circuit,
    South Kohala Division1
    in favor of Defendants-Appellees Jessica Nolen
    and Antonio Rolly Orr (Appellees) and (2)
    order,
    (district court)
    the June l3, 2006
    which denied Malasek's motion to set aside the judgment.
    Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-l(a) (Supp. 2006)
    authorizes appeals to the intermediate court of appeals (lCA)
    only from final judgments, orders, and decrees. A judgment is
    final and appealable when it "ends the litigation by fully
    deciding all rights and liabilities of all parties,
    leaving
    nothing further to be adjudicated[.]"
    Casumpang v. ILWU, Local
    ' l42, 91 HaWafi 425, 426, 984 P.2d l25l, 1252 (l999).
    Conversely, "an order is not final if the rights of a party
    involved remain undetermined or if the matter is retained for
    further action."
    l7, 27 (2007).
    cho v. stace, 115 HawaiH_373, 333, 
    163 P.3d 1
    The Honorable Matthew S.K. Pyun presided.
    GB"``H,:\
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    The district court's February 1, 2006 judgment does not
    adjudicate all of the parties' claims. The February 1, 2006
    judgment grants default judgment to Appellees on their
    counterclaims and dismisses Malasek's "initial complaint for
    rent." It does not, however, resolve the claim for "[r]eplevin
    of (12) paintings and other things" that Malasek alleges were
    taken when Appellees moved out and that was also pleaded in the
    complaint. As such, under the judgment entered on February 1,
    2006, Malasek's rights in regard to the artwork remain
    undetermined.
    1 The district court denied Malasek's motion to set aside
    the default judgment, finding that Malasek failed to demonstrate
    excusable neglect sufficient to invoke relief under Rule 60(b)(l)
    of the District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP).
    A motion for post-judgment relief under DCRCP Rule
    60(b), like a motion for reconsideration pursuant to HawaFi
    Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 6O(b),2 "is authorized only
    in situations involving final judgments." QhQ, 115 Hawafi at
    
    382, 168 P.3d at 26
    (quoting Crown Props., Inc. v. Fin. Sec. Life
    lQ§;, 6 HaW. App. l05, ll2, 
    712 P.2d 504
    , 509 (l985) (internal
    quotation marks omitted) and citing Tradewinds Hotel, Inc. v.
    COChran, 8 HaW. App. 256, 262, 
    799 P.2d 60
    , 65 (l990)). "lndeed,
    by its terms, Rule 60(b) only applies to a 'final judgment,
    order, or proceeding.'" lQ;
    Without the entry of a final judgment, post-judgment
    relief under DCRCP Rule 60(b) is not available. lQ; at 
    383, 168 P.3d at 27
    . Because the February 1, 2006 default judgment was
    not a final judgment, the June 13, 2006 order is an interlocutory
    2 DCRCP Rule 60 can be interpreted by analogy to HRCP Rule 60. See
    Casumpanq v. ILWU, Local 142, 94 HawaiH.330, 337, 
    13 P.3d 1235
    , 1242 (2000)
    (applying same standard of review to application of HRCP 12(b)(1) and DCRCP 12
    1 (b)(1) because the two rules are substantially identical)
    2
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PAC[FIC REPORTER
    order. Under HRS § 641-1(a), the ICA lacks jurisdiction to
    review the order.
    Therefore,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellate court case number
    28007 is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
    DATED: Honolulu, HawaFi, June 9, 2010.
    On the briefs:
    Robert D. Triantos  ~-
    Edmund W.K. Haitsuka
    Michael H. Schlueter, Presiding Judge
    (Carlsmith Ball),
    for Plaintiff-Appellant. if é1*“
    Clkkx\&m¢pm }*~‘/'L
    Barbara L. Franklin, Associate Judge
    for Defedants-Appellees.
    Associate Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 28007

Filed Date: 6/9/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014