Title: Tataii v. Pang

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY

 
 
 
  

#4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

no. 24932

aan

STEVE TATAII, Plaintiff-Appellant,

GORDON Y.K. PANG, FRANK BRIDGEWATER, JOHN FLANAGAN, HONOLULU
‘STAR-BULLETIN, LIBERTY NEWSPAPERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS DBA
HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

a

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(S.P. NO. 00-1-0474)

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C-J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

‘The plaintiff-appellant Steve Tataii appeals the
January 22, 2002 order of the first circuit court, the Honorable
Eden Elizabeth Hifo presiding, denying his motion for
reconsideration of the circuit court’s Novenber 7, 2001 order
granting summary judgment and final judgment in favor of, inter
alia, the defendants-eppellees Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Liberty
Newspapers Ltd. Partnership, Gordon Pang, Frank Bridgewater and
gohn Flanagan [hereinafter, collectively, “the Appellees”} and
against Tataii.

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that this
court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, pursuant to Hawai'i
Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a) (1) and Hawai'i
Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rules 6(b) and 59(e).
‘** NOP FOR PUBLICATION *#*
As to Tataii’s December 3, 2001 motion for
reconsideration, the circuit court had no power to grant an

extension for filing that motion past the original ten-day

 

deadline set out in HRCP Rule 59(e): under that rule, any motion
to alter or amend judgment “shall be filed no later than 10 days
after the entry of judgment.” That ten-day period may not be
extended. HRCP Rule (6) (b) states in pertinent part that “the
court for cause shown aay at any time in its discretion...
order (a) period (for acting] enlarged . . . ; but it may not

extend the time for taking action under (HRCP] Rule [] . . . 59

 

(e)." Accordingly, any HRCP Rule 59(@) motion filed
outside the ten-day deadline is untimely.

Therefore, pursuant to HRCP Rule $9(e), Tataii had
until November 17, 2001 to file his motion for reconsideration of
the November 7, 2001 judgment. He in fact filed it on Decenber
3, 2001. The motion was therefore untimely, and, as such, the
circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Consequently,

the circuit court's January 22, 2002 denial from which Tataii

 

appeals was a nullity. Accordingly, this court has no appellate
jurisdiction to consider the present appeal. See Bacon vs
Karlin, 6@ Haw. 648, 650, 727 P.2d 1127, 1128 (1986) (holding
that, when faced with a jurisdictional defect, this court has no

discretion, but must sua sponte dismiss the appeal) (citing

Eamilian N.W., Inc. v. Cent, Pac. Boiler & Piping, Ltd., 68 Haw.
368, 368, 714 P.2d 936, 937 (1986); BDM, Inc. v. Sageco, Inc., 57

Haw. 73, 73, $49 P.2d 1147, 1148 (1976); Naki v. Hawaiian Elec
#44 nom FOR PUBLICATION ***
Cos, 50 Haw. 85, 86, 431 P.2d 943, 944 (2967)).°
Therefore,
I? 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai"i, April 5, 2006.

on the briefs:

Plaintiff-appellant ff” tem —
Steve Tataii,

pro 28
sdmind K. Sefteey of SheeBioaioe~
Sone aseetoSguian «set ffel
ear eat Neue ope yore

Gordon Y.K. Pang, Frank

Bridgewater, John Flanagan,

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, oon
Liberty Newspapers Linited

Partnerships dba Honolulu

Star-Bulletin Coren Digs B+

2 re ghould also be noted that an untimely HRCP Rule $9(e) motion
‘alco faile telerigger the #RAP Rule 4(2) (3) tolling of the 30 cay period for
atecoling a sudgnent. set forth in HRAP Role 4(a) (1). Therefore Tataii had
sePytuacla ‘pecesber 7, 2001 to file an appeal of the November 7, 200),
Souymest, a deadline that had passed long before he filed his February 21,
ABEPSGpeal from the order denying his motion for reconsideration.

 

3