Goold v. Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                                     Electronically Filed
    Intermediate Court of Appeals
    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    14-APR-2023
    08:15 AM
    Dkt. 128 ORD
    NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
    JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
    HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.; HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES,
    INC.; ELIZABETH DEER; SHANA M. BUCO, Defendants-Appellees, and
    JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10;
    DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and
    DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants
    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    (CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
    ORDER REINSTATING APPEAL
    (By:   Leonard, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Chan, JJ.)
    Upon consideration of self-represented Plaintiff-
    Appellant Jeffrey Scott Goold's (Goold) March 31, 2023 "Plaintiff
    Position Statement Regarding Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
    [Dkt No 113]" (Position Statement),1 the papers in support, and
    the record, it appears:
    1
    Goold fails to expressly set forth the relief sought. Hawai i Rules
    of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 27(a) (providing in part that a "motion
    must contain or be accompanied by any matter required by a specific provision
    of these Rules governing such a motion, shall state with particularity the
    grounds upon which it is based, and shall set forth the order or relief
    sought"); see Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai i 368, 380-81, 
    465 P.3d 815
    , 827-28
    (2020) (holding that "pleadings prepared by pro se litigants should be
    interpreted liberally").
    Goold is cautioned to comply with the HRAP. HRAP Rule 1(d) (providing
    in part that "[a]ttorneys and pro se parties are deemed to be aware of, and
    are expected to comply with, all of the provisions of these rules").
    Future violations may result in the motion being denied, sanctions, or
    both.
    (1) Goold's Position Statement is in response to this
    court's March 31, 2023 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Appeal
    (Dismissal Order);
    (2) Goold contends this court misunderstood his
    March 2, 2023 "Notice of Withdrawal Under Objection" in that he
    did not intend to abandon, dismiss, or withdraw his appeal via
    motion under HRAP Rule 42(b) but rather, to give notice that he
    withdraws the appeal "under objection";
    (3) Goold only sought dismissal of the appeal without
    prejudice;
    (4) However, HRAP Rule 42 does not permit dismissals
    without prejudice, and Goold does not otherwise appear to seek
    dismissal of the appeal with prejudice; and
    (5) The opening brief, originally due October 3, 2022,
    was due on a second extension on or before March 1, 2023.
    Despite the extensions, Goold failed to file the opening brief or
    timely request an additional extension, and is in default.
    Therefore, it is hereby ordered:
    1.   The Dismissal Order is vacated and the appeal is
    reinstated.
    2.   Goold's March 2, 2023 "Notice of Withdrawal Under
    Objection," construed as a motion to dismiss the appeal without
    prejudice, is denied.
    3.   Specially Appearing Defendant-Appellee Hawaiian
    Electric Company, Inc.'s March 17, 2023 "Motion to Dismiss Notice
    of Appeal with Prejudice" is denied without prejudice.
    4.   Goold's March 19, 2023 "Motion for Reconsideration"
    is denied.
    5.   The deadline to file the opening brief is extended
    to May 15, 2023.      No further extensions of time will be granted
    absent extraordinary circumstances.
    DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai i, April 14, 2023.
    /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
    Presiding Judge
    /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
    Associate Judge
    /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan
    Associate Judge
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CAAP-22-0000406

Filed Date: 4/14/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/15/2023