Case Title: McElvaney v. Yo

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
No. 27809
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'I
KAMALI C.E.M. MCELVANEY; JOHN E. MCELVANEY,: ¥
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

atte

HARVELEE H, LEITE~AH YO, R.P.T., D.C., et ale,
Defendants-Appellees. 2

SE -O1H 91 ane

 

APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 03-1-169)

for the court!)

(py: Nakayama, J.,
rs that we lack

 

upon review of the record, it apps
jurisdiction over Plaintiff-Appellant Kamali C.E.M. McElvaney and
Jon E. McElvaney''s (the McElvaney Appellants) appeal in this
case, because the Honorable Greg K. Nakamura’s Novenber 7, 2005
judgnent does not satisfy the requirements for an appealable
final judgment under HRS § 641-1(a) (1993), Rule $8 of the
Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP), and our holding in

Jenkins v, Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai'i 115,

869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994).
Under the HRCP Rule 58 separate document rule,

19,

“fain

appeal may be taken from circuit court orders resolving clains
against parties 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 Hawai'i 115, 119,

869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994).

‘considered by! Moon, C.J. Levinson, Nakayama, Acobs, and Duffy, 99.
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

(Z}f a judgment purports to be the final iudament
multiple claims or multiple

Earties, the judgment (a) must specifically

identity the party or parties for and against whom

and (b) must (i) identify
the claims for which it is entered, and
(44) dismiss any claims not specifically
identified(.]

 

Ids (emphases added) .
Although the McElvaney Appellants asserted their

complaint against three defendants, i.e., Defendante-Appellees

Harvelee H. Leite-Ah Yo, R.P.T., D.C., Otagani Maysonet, D.C.,

and Hawaii Physical Therapy & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc., the

 

Novenber 7, 2005 judgment enters judgment “in favor of Defendant”
without specifically identifying the defendant for whom the
judgment is entered. Therefore, the November 7, 2005 judgment
does not satisty the appealability requirements of HRS § 641-1(a)
(1993) and the HRCP Rule 58 separate docunent rule under our
holding in Jenkins v, Cades Schutte Fleming § Wright. Absent an
appealable final judgment, the appeal is premature. Accordingly,

IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for
Jack of appellate jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 16, 2006.

FOR THE COUR:

Pesier C1: Toate

Associate Justice