Title: Anderson v. Douglas

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION
No. 25144

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'L

—SSSSSSSSSSSSSSeSess
KELLY ANDERSON and VERONICA FARRELL, Petitioners-Appellees

 

KEITH DOUGLAS, Respondent-Appellant
ee
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND crRevIT =

(CIV. NO. 28802-34(W))

  
 

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

Respondent-appellant Keith Douglas (Douglas) appeals
from the May 1, 2002 order of the district court of the second
circuit, the Honorable Geronimo Valdriz, Jr. presiding, granting
a petition for injunction against harassment (the petition) filed
against Douglas by petitioners-appeilees Kelly Anderson and
Veronica Farrell [hereinafter, “petitioners”)

on appeal, Douglas argues that: (1) the district court
lacked jurisdiction to enter the May 1, 2002 order because
service of process was not in accordance with law; and (2) the
district court erred in entering the May 1, 2002 order by
default, inasmuch as (a) Douglas became entitled to an
evidentiary hearing on the petition after he submitted an
affidavit denying the petition’s allegations, and (b) counsel for
Douglas was present at the hearing on the petition.

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: (2)
while the order from which Douglas appeals expired on October 1,
2002, the instant appeal is not moot in light of the order's
‘*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

adverse “collateral consequences” to Douglas's professional
standing and reputation, see, e.g., Inze Doe, 61 Hawai'i 91, 99,
912 P.2d 588, 596 (App. 1996) In xe Surrick, 338 F.3d 224, 230
(3d Cir. 2003); Dailey v. Vought Aircraft Co., 141 F.3d 224, 228
(Sth Cir. 1998); Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and
Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 3533.3, at 291-293 (1984); and (2)
the order is void because (a) service of process, which was not
preceded by a court order authorizing out-of-state service, was
defective, see Hawai‘l Revised Statutes (HRS) § 604-7(c) (1993)
and HRS § 634-24 (1993), and (b) consequently, the district court
lacked personal jurisdiction over Douglas. See, e.c., Romero ve
Star Markets, Ltd., 82 Hawai'i 405, 413, 922 P.2d 1018, 1026
(app. 1996); In re Lease Cancellation of Smith, 68 Haw. 466, 471,
719 P.2d 397, 401 (1986). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order from which the
appeal is taken is vacated.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 8, 2005.

on the briefs:
Janes P. Brumbaugh and Gi ?
Brian R. Jenkins of
Brumbaugh & Jenkins
for the respondent- LeeriBitomse—
appellant Keith Douglas
Lloyd A. Poelman and

Sanford J. Langa of
Poelman & Langa
for the petitioners

appellees Kelly Anderson
and Veronica Farrell Bonen Badtyr he