Case Title: Unity House, Inc. v. Heavenly Road Productions, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

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

Document:
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION *#*

wo. 27811

ane

 

8 HY 91 NNT saa

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I,

UNITY HOUSE, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee,

0,

HEAVENLY ROAD PRODUCTIONS, INC., and MICHAEL LUCAS,
Defendants-Appellants.

see

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 98-5043)

ie BPI
(py: Nakayama, J, for the court!)

upon review of the record, it appears that we lack
jurisdiction over Defendants-Appellants Heavenly Road
Productions, Inc. (Appellant Heavenly Road Productions), and
Michael Lucas's (Appellant Lucas) appeal in this case, because
the Honorable Bert I. Ayabe’s February 9, 2006 judgment does not
satisfy the requirements for an appealable final judgment under
RS § 641-1(a) (1993), Rule $8 of the Hawai's Rules of Civil
Procedure (HRCP), end our holding in Jenkins v. Cades Schutte
Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai'i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338
(1994).

Under the HRCP Rule 58 separate document rule, “[a]n
appeal may be taken from circuit court orders resolving claims
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) 58.1”
Jenkins v. Cades e & Wright, 76 Hawai'i 115, 119,

 

Yeonsidered by: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, 90.

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

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

(I1f 2 judgment purports to be the final judgment
in a case involving multiple claims or multiple
Parties, the judgment (a) must specifically
identity the party or parties for and against whom
the judgment is entered, and (b) must (1) identify
the Glaims for which it is entered, and

(ii) dismiss any claims not specifically
identified(.)

Ade (emphases added) .

The February 9, 2006 does not expressly enter judgment
in favor of any party, and, furthermore, the February 9, 2006
Judgment enters judgment against, among other persons, a
“Defendant David Glasser,” even though no one by that name is a
party in this case. Therefore, the February 9, 2006 judgment
does not enter judgment in favor of and against the appropriate
parties. In addition, although Plaintiff-Aappellee Unity House,
Inc.'s (Appellee Unity House), complaint asserted two separate
counts for breach of contract against Appellant Heavenly Road
Productions and Appellant Lucas, the February 9, 2006 judgment
does not sufficiently identify the claim or claims for which it
is entered. “If the circuit court intends that claims other than
those listed in the judgment language should be disnissed,” then
the circuit court should include operative language within the
judgment that orders “all other claims, counterclaims, and cross-
clains are dismissed.” ve Cadi e Fu
Mrsoht, 76 Hawai'i at 120 n.4, 869 P.2d at 1339 n.4. (internal
quotation marks omitted) .

Therefore, the February 9, 2006 judgment does not
satisfy the appealability requirements of HRS § 641-1(a) (1993)

and the HRCP Rule 58 separate document rule under our holding in

2
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION *** '
Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming 4 Wright. Absent an appealable

final judgment, the appeal is premature. Accordingly,
IT I8 HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for
lack of appellate jurisdiction.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 16, 2006.
FOR THE COURT:

See Erase

Associate Justice