Case Title: Barnedo v. Domimguez

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRARY

 

wo. 26396 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'

  

aad

JUNIE BARNEDO and JUAN BARNEDO, Plaintiffs-Apped

L2 OMY 62 43S 3002

vs.
ERLINDA DOMINGUEZ, dba THE LAW OFFICES OF ERLINOA DOMINGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant,

and

RON R. ASHLOCK; THOMAS KASTER; WILLIAM COPULOS; DAVID KUWAHARA
THOMAS WALSH; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS.

1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; ROE “NON-PROFIT” CORPORATIONS
1°10; and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.
(NO. 26394; CIV. NO. 99-2847)

 

JUNIE BARNEDO and JUAN BARNEDO,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

ERLINDA DOMINGUEZ, dba THE LAW OFFICES OF ERLINDA DOMINGUEZ,
Defendant~Appellant,

and
RON R, ASHLOCK; THOMAS KASTER; WILLIAM COPULOS;
THOMAS WALSH; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10;
1-10;
iu

DAVID_KUWAHARA:
DOE CORPORATIONS
DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; ROE “NON-PROFIT” CORPORATIONS

‘and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.
(NO. 26695; CIV. NO. 99-2847)

 

 

JUNIE BARNEDO and JUAN BARNEDO, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

vs.
ERLINDA DOMINGUEZ, dba THE LAW OFFICES OF ERLINDA DOMINGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant,

and
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

RON R. ASHLOCK; THOMAS KASTER; WILLTAM COPULOS; DAVID KUWAHARA;
THOMAS WALSH; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS
1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; ROE “NON-PROFIT” CORPORATIONS
1°10; and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.

(NO. 27035; CIV. NO. 99-2847)

 

APPEALS FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 99-2847)

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy, JJ., and
Circuit Judge Lee in place of Acoba, J., recused)

In this legal malpractice action arising out of an
underlying product liability suit and default judgment obtained
in federal court, attorney and defendant-appellant Erlinda
Dominguez appeals pro se from the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit's February 9, 2004 amended final judgment in favor of

her former clients, plaintiffs-eppellees Junie and Juan Barnedo

 

(hereinafter, the Barnedos], awarding the Barnedos: (1)
$483,875.09 in damages; (2) $479,637.16 in prejudoment interest

(as of October 7, 2003); (3) $112,468.77 in attorneys’ fees: and
(4) $6,426.73 in costs. On appeal, Dominguez appears to contend
that the circuit court: (1) erred when it denied her May 3, 2004

and Novenber 8, 2004 postjudgment motions for relief from the

> The Honorable Cexter Del Rosario presided over the first motion for
ssnsry Juagnent. The Honorable Victoria S. Marks presides over all other
pretrial matters, including the second motion for summary judgnent, and the
trial.” the Honorable ¥aren Blondin served as Arbitration Judge. the
Henordble cary W.B. Cheng presided over the postjuconent meticns.

2

 

 

 
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER #
judgment because the judgment was void for lack of subject matte:
jurisdiction due to defects in the Barnedos’ Hawai'i Arbitration
Rules (HAR) Rule 22? notice of appeal from the Court Annexed
Arbitration Program (CRAP) award in Dominguez’s favor; (2) erred
in concluding that the Barnedos’ complaint was not barred by th
statute of limitations; (3) erred in denying her April 2, 2003
motion for judgment as a matter of law due to the Barnedos’
failure to prove duty, causation, or damages; (4) erred or abused
its discretion when it admitted the records from the federal
action, including the Barnedos’ trial exhibits 2, 30, 31, 35, 36,
37, and 50 over her objections because they lacked foundation,
were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, and constituted
hearsay? (5) erred when it issued repetitious, misleading, and
incorrect jury instructions over her objections; (6) erred when
At issued a misleading special verdict form to the jury over her
objections; (7) abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees
under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 607-14 (1993) because the
instant action was not in the nature of assumpsit; (8) abused its
discretion when it awarded prejudgment interest under HRS
§ 636-16 (1993) because the start date was arbitrary and
+ HAR Rule 22 provides in pertinent part:
(A) Within twenty (20) days after the award is served upon
the parties, any perty may file with the clerk cf the court and
serve on the other parties and the Arbitration Administrator a

eitten Notice of Appeal ang Request for Trial De Nove ef the
action:

 
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

unwarranted; and (9) abused its discretion when it denied

 

Dominguez’s October 15, 2004 motion for relief from the judgment

due to the Barnedos’ fraudulent declarations regarding the lack

 

of an English translation of the pleadings in the Japan
declaratory judgment action.’ The Barnedos, in addition to
countering that the circuit court did not commit reversible error
fon any of the points raised by Dominguez, also argue that
Dominguez’s briefs violate Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure
(HRAP) Rule 28(b) and Section 5 of the Guidelines cf Professional
Courtesy and Civility for Hawai'i Lawyers (GPCCHL) and ask this
court to disregard certain arguments raised by Dominguez or
impose sanctions as appropriate.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the argunents advocated and the issues raised, we hold as
follows:

(2) In SC No. 26695, the circuit court erred when it
concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Dominguez’s
Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60(b) post judgment
motion for relief from the judgment on the merits. See Amantiad
Ys Odum, 90 Hawai'i 152, 158, 977 P.2d 160, 166 (1999) ("The

 

> ks set forth herein, one of the problens presented by this appeal is
that it ds dittscvit to discern precteely wnat Dominguer’s points of error
are, As such, the foregoing 1s this court's interpretation ef her points of
   

+ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review
de nove under the right/wrong standard.” (Citations omitted.)
fe of the Land v, Arivoshi, 57 Haw. 249, 252, 983 P.2d 464, 466
(1976) (stating that if an HRCP Rule 60(b) motion is filed while
an appeal is pending, the trial court has jurisdiction to deny
the motion on the merits without remand from the appellate court,
but lacks jurisdiction to grant the motion). However, the error
was harmless because the motion would have been properly denied
on the merits in that the requirenents of HAR Rule 22 are not
jurisdictional, see HAR Rule 7 ("Cases filed in, or removed to,
the Circuit Court shall remain under the jurisdiction of that
court for all phases of the proceedings, including arbitration.”
(Eephasis added.)), and thus even if the Barnedos’ notice of
appeal failed to comply with the rule, Dominguez waived that
error by failing to timely raise it. See HACP Rule 61 (stating

that no error is grounds for disturbing a judgment unless

inconsistent with substantial justice); Hilo Fin. & Thrift Co.
td. ve De Costa, 34 Haw. 47, 48 (1936) (stating that procedural,

as opposed to jurisdictional errors, are deened waived if not
tinely asserted);

(2) The circuit court properly denied Dominguez’ s
motions for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations.

See Kauv, City & County of Honolulu, 104 Hawai'i 468, 473, 92
 

(OT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
—TRQTEOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **¢__

P.3d 477, 462 (2004) ("We review the circuit court’s grant or
denial of summary judgment de nova.” (Citations omitted.)).
First, there were genuine issues of material fact regarding when
the Barnedos should have discovered the existence of their

claims. See Higa v. Mirikitani, $5 Haw. 167, 172-73, $17 P.2d 1,

5-6 (1973) (stating that al1 legal malpractice actions, wheth

 

characterized as tort or contract actions, are governed by the

six-year statute of limitations found in HRS § 657-1(1)), cited

with approval in Blair v. Ing, 95 Hawai'i 247, 263 n.12, 21 P.3d
452, 468 n.12 (2001); Nore. Six £) ene inc., 102

Hawai’ 203, 206, 74 P.3d 26, 29 (2003) (*(T}he monent at which
statute of limitations is triggered is ordinarily a question of
fact." (Citation omitted.)); Blair, 95 Hawas's at 267; 21 P.3d
at 472 ("[T]he trier of fact must determine the date by which
(the plaintiffs) knew or should have known of their malpractice

claim.”); Buck v, Miles, 89 Hawai'i 244, 251, 971 P.24 717, 724

 

(1999) ("{U]nder the discovery rule, the statute of limitations
begins to run the moment the plaintiff discovers or should have
Giscovered the negligent act, the damage, and the causal
connection between the former and the latter.” (Citations,
internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted.)).

Second, Dominguez effectively abandoned the statute of

limitations as a defense at trial in that she requested no
{++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **
questions relating to the statute of limitations in the special
verdict form, no jury instructions on the statute of limitations,
and made no argunent based on the statute of Limitations during

the trial.‘ Therefore, she should not be he 1 on such

   

rd to app.
grounds now. See HRCP Rule B(c) (stating that the statute of
Limitations is an affirmative defense); Mauian Hotel, Inc. vi

Maui Pineapple Co., Ltd., 52 Haw. 563, $69, 481 P.2d 310, 314-15,
(1971) ("It is general law that the statute of limitations is a

personal defense and a person may waive the benefits of such
statute." (Citations omitted.)); GECC Fin, Corp. v. Jaffarian,
79 Hawai'i 516, 526, 904 P.2d 530, 540 (App. 1995) (Acoba, “J.,

concurring) (explaining that affirmative defenses not supported

+ the one exception to Dominguez’s abandonnent of the statute of
Limitations defense 1s her motion for judgnent ss ¢ matter of lew arguing that
the Barnedos’ theory based on Dominguez’s failure to defend the Japane:

   

 

action should not 90 to the Jury because, under the discovery rule, it sccrued
in February 1981 in that (1) the Baznedes’ own testimony denonstrated that

they knew a8 of that Cine that Oominguez would “ignore” the Japan
and (2) the Barnedos should have known, based on the Japanese docunents, thst
they would be deemed £0 have adaitted the allegations in the Japanese
complaint if they did not answer. However, even assuming that, despite their
Eertimeny that no English translation ef the Japanese docunents was attached,
they shoula have known what those documents aid about the consequences of
failure to appear in the Japanese action, there was still a genuine issue of
material fact, as to which Dominguez hed the burden of proof, regarding when
the Earnedos showle nave known of 8 caveal connection between a defaule
judgment against then in Jopan and an inability to collect on their U.S.
jusgment (Lae, when the Barnedos should have been charged with the knowledge
that a Japanese court might refuse to enforce a foreign judgment that was in
direct conflict with a valid final Japanese judgment). Because Dominguez
cited ng evidence on this point, much less evidence such thet no reasonable
Juror Cculd find against her, the cizcuit court did not err in denying
judgment as a natter of law cn this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>
 

+** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
ST NOTFOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***__
by evidence may be abandoned), aff'd, 80 Hawai'i 118, 905 P.2d

624 (1995);
(3) Dominguez fails to comply with HRAP Rule 26(b)?
inasmuch as (a) some of Dominguez’s points of error do not have a

corresponding “Argument” section and/or do not state where in the

 

* MRAP Rule 28(b) provides in relevant part

(4) A concise statenent of the points of error set
forth in separately numbered paragraphs. Each point shall
state: (J) the ellegea error conuitted by the court oF
agency: (4i) where in the record the elleged exror occurred;
and (Lid) where in the record the alleged error was cbjected
fo o the manner in which the slleged error was Drought te
the attention of the court or agency. “Where applicable,
each point shall elso include the #2ilowin

  

 

(A) when the point involves the adnission or rejection
Of evidence, § quotation of the grounds urged fer the
‘objection ahd the full’ substance of the evidence
adnitted or zejecteds

 

(8) when the point involves 2 jury instruction, a quotation
of the instruction, given, refused, or modified, together
With the objection urged at the trials

(C) when the point involves # finding or conclusion of the
court or agency, quotation of the finding er conclusion
Srged se error!

 

Eoints not presented in accordance with this section will be
Gisrenardes, except that the appellete court, at ite option: may
notice 2 plain error not presented. Lengthy parts of the
transcripts that are material to the points presented may be
included in the appendix instesd of being quoted in the poiet.

  

(7) The argunent, containing the contentions of the
appeliant on the points presented and the reasons therefor,
With citations to the authorities, statue
Fecord relied on. the
Summary.

 
 

(Emphases edded.)
 

‘++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.
record she raised or objected to the error, (b) Dominguez’ s
argument section raises a multitude of issues that she does not
coherently argue and/or does not raise as separate points of
error in her “Points of Error” section, and (c) throughout her
opening briefs, Dominguez often fails to cite the appropriate
standards of review or the relevant statutes. Therefore, we
disregard her third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth

points of error. See HRAP Rule 28(b) (4) ("Points not presented

 

; MRAP
state
ysMoore, 82 Hawai'i 202, 206 n.1, 921 P.2d 122, 126 n.1 (1996)

in accordance with this section will be disregarded{.)”

 

Rule 28(b) (7) ("Points not argued may be deemed waived.")

(disregarding a claim where @ proponent fails to make any
discernible argument in support thereof); Bitney v. Hono:
Police Dep't, 96 Hawai'i 243, 251, 30 P.3d 257, 265 (2001)
(stating that generally “[i]ssues not properly raised on appeal,
will be deemed to be waived”) (alteration in original) (quoting

Hill_v. Inouye, 90 Hawai'i 76, 62, 976 P.2d 390, 396 (1998));*

© If this court were to sift the wheat from the chaff and construe
Doningue:'s scattershot arguments a2 raising meritorious points, such effort
would cross the boundary between juscing and advocating. See Alford vv City &

wig, 108 Nawes's 24, 26, 122 P.34 609, 621 (2008) (stating thet
“the appellate court cannot serve 22 both advecate and judge")
gootation marks ond citation emitted)

8

 

 

 

    
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WES’

 

HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) Throughout her briefs, Dominguez vents superfluous
and inappropriate invective,” which clearly violates Section 5,
eccuts*

(5) The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Dominguez's HRCP Rule 60(b) postjudgment motion for
relief from the judgment for fraud on the court because the
alleged fraud was discovered before the February 9, 2004 judgment
was entered; Dominguez thus had the time and the means, both

prior to entry of judgment in the trial court and prior to entry

 

Tor example, the following pai
No. 263947

jage {8 from her opening brief in sc

 

THERE 15 EVIL THAT LURKS UNDERNEATH APPELLEES' CLAIMS.
COVERED WITH FALSE GRANDEUR, APPELLEES’ CASE HAS NO-AGOTS-1t
REVEALEO 178 TAUE INSIOES WHEN 17 SPOUTED HORE VENH.
APPELLEES" CASE IS INMERENTLY VICIOUS BUT WITHOUT LIFE, A
DEAD WEIGHT. APPELLEES" CASE MOLDED 17S ROLE IW LEGAL’
HISTORY- FICTITIOUS AND TYRANNICAL, HOLLOW BUT OPPRESSIVE.
APPELLEES MOST SAVE BELIEVED THEIR DERD ROOTS WILL, REHATN
HIDDEN AND ONDISCOVERED, CAUSING HAVOC, BUT TWAT SPECIAL DAY
OF RECKONING OF “JUSTICE BEYOND APPARENT QUSTICE” 18 AT
max

(Formatting and emphases as in origina!

 

) (Footnote omitted.)
* section of the GECCHL states in pertinent part:

Written materials submitted to the court should always be factual
and concise ené shale accurately state the corrent law and fairly
Fepresent the parties’ position wiehout unfairly attacking the
‘opposing party or opposing counsel

 

Specifically, @ lawer who manifests professional courtesy and
eiviliy:

B) Does not cegrade the intelligence, ethics, morals,
integrity, or personal behavior of the opposing party,
counsel or withess unless such matters are at issve to the
proceedings.

 

10
‘++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **
of judgment on appeal in SC No. 26394, to verify whether the
Barnedos had “lied” in their testimony, and to seek a remedy
prior to entry of final judgment. See Beneficial Hawaii, Inc, v,
Casey, 98 Hawal' 159, 164, 45 P.3d 359, 364 (2002) (“The circuit
court’s disposition of an HRCP Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for
abuse of discretion.” (Citations omitted.)); Kawamata Farms,
Inc. v. United Aari Prods., 86 Hawai'i 214, 259, 948 P.2d 1055,
1100 (1997) ("Under the circumstances of this case, based on the
egregious nature of DuPont’s fraud, we construe the HRCP so as
not to disallow a remedy under HRCP Rule 60(b) (3) when there is a
post=iudement discovery of fraud supported by clear and
convincing evidence.” (Emphasis added.)); Standard Momt., Inc.
ve Kekona, 98 Hawai'i 95, 100, 43 P.3d 232, 237 (App. 2001)
(stating that where the HRCP Rule 60(b) movant “had ample
opportunity to reveal [the alleged perjury] as such," he cannot
maintain an independent action for litigation fraud); Havashi v.
Hayashi, 4 Haw. App. 286, 292, 666 P.2d 171, 175 (1983) (stating
that an action for litigation fraud will not lie unless the
plaintiff can show the absence of any other adequate remedy)
(citing Hinfield Assocs., Inc, v. Stonecipher, 429 F.2d 1087
(10th Cir, 1970)). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court's: (1)

February 9, 2004 amended final judgment, appealed as SC No.

n
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
26394, is affirmed; (2) July 12, 2004 postjudgment order denying
Dominguez’ s postjudgnent motion to dismiss, appealed as sc

No. 26695, is affirmed, but for the reasons stated herein; and
(3) December 17, 2004 postjudgment orders (a) denying Dominguez’ s
HRCP Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the February 9, 2004
judgnent as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and

(b) denying Dominguez’s motion for relief from the February 9,
2004 judgment for fraud on the court, appealed as SC No. 27038,
are affizned.

DATED: Honclulu, Hawat'i, September 29, 2006.

on the briefs:

Erlinda Dominguez, Gp om

defendant-appellant,
pro se a
Francis T. 0’ Brien

and Collin M. (Marty) Pues ann
Price for plaintitis- Senate
appellees dunie Barnedo

ano Juan Barnedo Qin £. Oss

om t.0. RO

12