Title: Jou v. Schmidt

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY

1" NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
No. 26540
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

EMERSON M.F. JOU, M.D., Petitsoner-Appellant-Appellant,

J.P. SCHMIDT, Insurance Commissioner, Department of Commerce and
Consumer Affairs, State of Hawai'i, Appellee-Appellee,

 
 
 

         

and a8
3x
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE comPaRyls | &
Respondent Appel lee-Appellee. S33 8 a
se =
= = m
23 G
APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT couRT “E/= gp
(cIv. No. 3-1-2065) Jj 2
=

prspos:

Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Emerson M.P. Jou, M.D.

(ey:
Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant,
Jou"), appeals from the first circuit court’s March 30, 2004
judgment in favor of Respondent-Appellee-Appellee, State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”). On appeal,

Jou presents the following points of error: (1) the circuit

court reversibly erred by granting State Farm's Hawai'i Rules of
Civil Procedure (“HRP”) Rule 41(b)? motion to dismiss based upon
a HRCP Rule 72(d) (1) violations (2) the circuit court thereby
deprived him of his right to a fair trial under the state and
federal constitutions; (3) the circuit court “is depriving (him)
of his right to work for a living in a common occupation in the

community” under the state and federal constitutions; (4) the

 

2 the Honerable Eden Elizabeth Hifo presided.

+ HRC Rule 42(b) provides, in relevant part, that “(flor failure of

the plaintiff to prosecute oF to comply with these rules or any order of
court, a defendant may nove for dismissal of an action or of any cleim against

 
 

‘+++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
circuit court’s dismissal violated his right to equal protection
under the state and federal constitutions; (5) the circuit
court's ruling constituted state action that amounted to a
regulatory taking in violation of the state and federal
constitutions/ and (6) the circuit court's dismissal “violated
this) constitutional rights and was therefore more egregious than
an abuse of discretion.”

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

 

the argunents advanced and the issues raised, we hold tha
(1) The circuit court did not abuse its discretion’ by
the

 

dismissing Jou’s appeal, inasmuch as Jou failed to cau!
record on appeal to be transmitted to the circuit court by (a)
failing to make due return of service of his “Designation Of
Record” and “Order For Certification And Transmission Of

Record[,]"* and (b) failing to serve the “Notice Of Appeal”* and

> See Gump v, Wal-Mart stores, Inc,, 93 Hawai'i 417, 420, 5 F.3d
407, 420 (2000) {eating that court's order dismissing a case under HRCP
fale ile! (2) "would be reviewable for an abuse of discretion(]”).

+ wace Rule 72(¢) (1) (2003) unanbiguousty requires that the
‘appellant Snake due return of service . . . to the clerk of the circuit
2ebrt.* weer Rule 4(g). (2003) describes ‘the return of service procedure a
felious: “the person serving the process shail make proof of service thereof
{othe Court promptly and inany event within the tine during which the person
Eeved must respond to process.” ‘There is no evidence in the record that Jou
ade “due return of service.” The certificates of service attached to Jou's
Sestgnstion and order state, in relevant part, "I hereby certity that « copy
Of the foregoing will be sefved on the following party(ies) by U.S. Mail,
Court Jacket, oF personal delivery(.J"  (Eaphasie added.) A certificate’ of
Service promising to serve a dscuaent does not comply with the HRCP Rule 4(g)
Fequirenent that appellant prove that service has in fact been sade

 

 

+ service of a notice of appeal must comply with the service of
process rules set forth in ARCE Rule « (2003). See Munoz v. Chandler, 98

Rawat 60, 89, 42 P.34 657, 666 (App. 2002) (stating that service of @
Gotunent entitled “Agency Appeal” on the director of the Department of Hunan
Services violated ACP Rule (a) (¢)-(5) because appellant did not serve the

state attorney general). HRCP Rule 4(a) (8) requires that service be made
Sfolpon an officer or agency of the State by serving the State and by
(eont inued. ..)

2
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

 

“order For Certification And Transmission Of Record” on the
state attorney general. Jou’s failure to comply with the
foregoing procedural rules resulted in the record.on appeal not
being transmitted to the circuit court. Jou offered no
explanation for his noncompliance except for his incomplete
reading of the relevant court rules. The circuit court was thus

Well within its discretion to dismiss the matter.’
(2) Jou failed to raise the issues presented in his

remaining points of error in the court below, and they have

 

5(.. .continved)
delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to such officer or
agency.” (Enpnasis added.) Service Gpon “the State” must be accomplished by
SGelivering a copy of the sunnens and of the complaint to the attorney general
of the State or to the assistant attorney generel or to any deputy sttorney
Generel who has been appointed by the attorney general.” HRCP Rule 43) (8)~
Sou's certificate of service sttached to his *Notice Of Appeal” certified only
that the notice "will be served" on the Commiegioner and state Farm's

attorney.

 

 

+ RCP Rute $a) (2003) states that “(e]very order required by its
terms to be served, . . . every written... designation of record on appeal,
and similar paper shali be served upon each of the parties... ." HRCP Rule
Sib) goes on to explain that “[w]henever under these rules service is requized
or pernitted to be made upen a party represented by an attorney the service

Shall be nade goon the attorney unless service upon the party 18 ordered by

the court.” emphasis added.) The state attorney general i statutorily
Sesignated as the attorney for the State. See HRS § 26-7 (1993) ("The
Gepartaent [of the attorney general] shail - - . represent the state in all
eivil actions in which the State is a party’. ”.’. .") The Commissioner 1s
party, gee HRCP Rule 72(2) ("*Appellee’ means every governmental body or
Official (other than a court) whose decision, order or action is appealed
fron, and every other party to the proceedings."), and an official of the
State, gee HRS § 421:2°102 (1993) (establishing the Commissioner as the
adainistrator in control of the insurance division of the cepartnent of
Gcanerce and consume affairs). Accordingly, MRCP Rule 5 required Jou to serve
the "Order For Certification And Transnission Of Record” on the Commissioner's
attorney, the state attorney general

‘See Holiona vs Kanai, 24 Hew. 636, 637 (1918) (dismissing an
appee) because 2ppeliant failec to ensure the tinely filing of the record on
appeal and failed to neke a showing excusing such nenceaplience); Jn re Estate
SEBrow, 24 Haw, 712, 712-23 (2918) (same)? ue Loan Aes!

36 wow. 73, 74 (1942) (same); In re Estate of Wokushima, 39H

Detosta,
655 (1935) (sane); in re Estate of Wold, 42 Haw. 74, 75 (1957) (cane)?
2ST Haw. $54,556

abe, 480 (1977) (*(t)his court finds that dismissal of the entire appeal is
appropriate, due to appellant's flagrant disregard of the roles of covre.”)

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

   

   

 
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAl REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
therefore been waived." Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the
appeal is taken is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 22, 2007.

 

on the briefs:

Stephen M. Shaw,

for’ Petitioner-Appellant~
Appellant Enerson 4.F.

Sou, M.D.

Edmund K.U. Yee, BhVbecrnae~

far Respondent Appel Lee
Aopelies Seave rare Mutual Neuste CS puneuiyaren

Automobile Insurance Company

Yor e. Only

aii Vs » No. 25344, 2007 WL

Hawais Ventures, LUC v. Otaka, Inc,
1546603, at Sar (Haws Hay 9, 2007) {holding that the failure to preserve an
the circuit court level waives the issue on appeal)? In

  

Tid fawai's 25, 30, 129 P.2d S28, 533 (2006) ("inls e general rule, if

‘rot _reiee an argunent at trial, that argunent will be deened to
fave ceen waived on appeall.|") (Citing Seate v, Moses, 102 Hawai'i 443, 656,
53°p.3a 940, 947 (2003).)