Title: Jou v. Schmidt

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
No. 26541
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

EMERSON M.P. JOU, M.D., Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant,
vs.

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

and g 3

sone fan MUTUAL autowoere susuRaNcE courae? S|

Respondent ~Appel lee-Appellee. = R
ze 8
APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT e
2

(CIV. NO, 03-1-2157)

 

aang

 

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Petitioner-Appellant-Appellant Emerson M.F. Jou, M.D.
("Jou") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit! ("circuit court”) filed on March 30, 2004. In the
underlying agency appeal giving rise to the instant appeal, the
circuit court granted Respondent~Appellee-Appellee State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.’s (“State Farm”) motion to
dismiss Jou’s agency appeal under Hawai'i Rules of Civil
Procedure ("HRCP”) Rule 41(b) (2000).”
On appeal, Jou raises the following points of erro:

 

5 The Honorable ELizebeth Eden Hifo presided.

RCP Rule 41(b} (2000) (involuntary dismises), in effect at the
tine of Jou's agency appeal (henceforth, all rule end statute versions. cited
ie this order refer to the version then in effect unless otherwise noted)
provides in pertinent part: “For failure of the Plaintiff to prosecute oF te
Comply with (the Housis Rules of Civil Procedurel or any order of court, &
Gefendent nay nove for dlemiseei of an action or of any Cleim againet it.”

  

 

 
 

++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
(2) “[t]ne circuit court committed reversible error in granting
[state Farm’s] motion to dismiss this appeal grounded on alleged
non-compliance with KRCP [Rule] 72(d) (1)"7? (2) the circuit court
Sgeprived [Jou] of his right to a fair hearing in a fair tribunal
guaranteed by” the state and federal constitutions; (3) the
circuit court “is depriving (Jou) of his right to work for a
Living in @ conmon occupation in the community guaranteed by” the
state and federal constitutions; (4) the circuit court's
dismissal of Jou's agency appeal imposed “extra-statutory service,
requirenents” in violation of the equal protection guarantees of
the federal and state constitutions; (5) the circuit court
engaged in prohibited “state action” and “regulatory taking” in
violation of his state and federal constitutional rights: and (6)
the circuit court’s dismissal of his agency appeal “violated

[You's] constitutional rights and was therefore more egregious

clay MEP Rate 72(4)(11 (1996) (denignetion of the record on appeal)
provided:

‘The appellant shall, within the tise provided for filing the
notice of appeal of within auch further time, not to exceed 30
Gays, a2 may be allowed by the court for good cause shown, prepare
Gnd present to the clerk of the circuit court = designation, which
Ghali specify the papers, transcripts, minutes. and exhibite which
the appellate desires filea in the circuit court in connection
itn the appeals. The clerk, in the name and under the seal of the
circuit court, shell endors¢ on the designation an order, directed
fo the official or boy whose decision, order or action is
Sppealed from, commanding the latter co cereify and transmit such
pepere, tranecripte, minutes end exhibits to the circuit court
Mithin’20 days of the date of the order or within such further
tine os may be slowed by the court. The clerk shall issue
Certified copies of such designation and order to the eppellant
fer service upon the official oF boy woose decision, crder or
action ie appesied from and for service upen any other appellee.
The appellant shall serve certified copies of the designation and
Order and shall mate due return of service thereof to the clerk of
the circuit court. The circuit court ay compel obedience to the
order by any appropriete process

 

 

 

 

 

2
   

[NOT FOR FUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAM REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
than an abuse of discretion.”

upon carefully reviewing of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

 

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold as follow:
(2) Regarding Jou’s first point of error, the circuit
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jou’s agency
appeal. See Shasteen, Inc. v. Hilton Hawaiian Village Joint
Venture, 79 Hawai'i 103, 107, 699 P.2d 366, 390 (1995). The
record reflects that the agency record was never prepared and
transmitted for the circuit court's consideration for the
following reasons: (a) there is no proof that Jou effected
service of his notice of appeal, designation of the record, or
order for certification and transmission of the record as
required by HRCP Rule 72(d) (1) (1996) and HRCP Rule 4(g) (2003);¢
and (b) Jou failed to serve his notice of appeal, designation of
the record, and order for certification and transmission of the
record upon the state attorney general (legal counsel for the

Insurance Conmissioner),* as required by HRCP Rules 4(d) (4) and

 

+ ECE Rute 72{¢) (1) (1996) required that an appellant “shall serve
certified copies of the designation (of record on appeal to the circuit court]
‘and order [to certify and transmit the record) and shall make dve return of
Service thereof to ene clerk of the circuit court,” (Eapheses added.) Return
Of service, as per HACP Rule 4(g) (2003), states that "(t]he person serving
fhe process shall make proof of service thereof to the court promptly .
(Emphasis added.) “See also Minos v. chandler, 98 awai't 60, 89, 42 P.3d 687,
G66 (App. 2002). However, each ond every certificate of service by Jou
appended to his notice of appeal, designation of the record, and order for
certification and transmission of’ the record) only states in pertinent part
that those papers "upon the Insurance Connissicner himself and
counsel for State Far. (Eaphesie saded.) We hold that this does not
Gonstitute proof of service under HACP Rule 4(@) (2003)

 

 

 

 

 

 

lishing the office of the
‘The departnent. (of the
(continued...)

+ See HRS § 431:2-102 (Supp. 2000) (es
Inevrence Commissioner), ang HRS § 26-7 (1953)

 

 
‘4+ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
(4) (4) (5) (2003) and HRCP Rule 5(a) (2000),” because the
appended certificates of service only listed the Insurance
Commissioner himself and counsel for State Farm as addressees.

‘thus, the circuit court was within its discretion to dismiss

Jou's agency appeal. See e.a., Independ: teu)
Glenn Constr, Corp., 57 Haw. 554, 556, $60 P.2d 488, 490 (1977);

in re Estate of Holi, 42 Haw. 74, 74-75 (Hawai'i Terry 1957).

(2) Jou's remaining points of error are raised for the
first time on appeal, and are therefore waived. Hawai'i Rules of
Appellate Procedure Rule 26(b) (4) (2004); Kemp v. State of
Hawai'i Child Support Enforcement Agency, 111 Hawai'i 367, 391,
141 P.3d 1014, 1038 (2006).

‘Therefore,

 

81. seontinved)
attorney general] shall . . . represent the State in sll civil actions in
Which the State ss a party(.j*)+

 

«per tings, the notice of sppeal from an agency decision must be
served upon the state attorney general in accordance with HRCE Rules 4(4) (4)
and tid) (3) (2003). 98 Hawai'i at 89, 42 P.3d at 666. Service upen @
Government official may only be effected “by serving the state.” HRCP Rule
ahs) (2003). the state is served "by delivering a copy of the sunnons
of the complaint to the attorney general of the State or to the axsiacant
Slvottey geneval or t2'any deputy ottorney general who hos been trpointed by
the attorney general.”

    

 

 

   

    

 

 

+ "Wace ttn Sta) (2000) exgresely reguizen thet “eveey weiteen «
enaticn of recsrd on ave: Saber shall be served upon each
Sftthe parties.” lenphasis aaded,) As to how service is made, HRCP Rule $(b)
Provides that as 2 default rule, “service shall be sage upon the
e nless Service upon the party 18 ordered by the
Eeurt.* Iinphasis added.) As previously noted, the attorney for the
Shsurence Commiseioner is the state sttorney general

 

 

   

4
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the circuit
court is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 22, 2007.
on'the briefs:

stephen Show, for
Petitioner-Appellant- GY

Edmund XK. 0. Yee,
(ef Ayabe, \chongy_Nishinoto, Paautes Cr eseney rr
sie O'watimora, ue)

for Respondent Appellee

Sepellee este fore totaal a
Mloncbite Insurance co.

Warne, Duta