Title: Great Seneca Financial Corp. v. Yamura

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

‘*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION *** .
No. 27803

 

91 ae song

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘T

 

F
a7

 

GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant /Appelle

 

8

CURTIS M, YAMURA, Defendant /Counterclaim Plaintiff/Appellant.

 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIV. CASE NO. 1RC 05-1-4314)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
(By: Nakayama, J., for the court!)
upon review of the record, it appears that we do not
have jurisdiction over Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff/Appellant
Curtis M. Yamura’s (Appellant Yamura) appeal from the district
court's (1) order granting Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant/Appellee Great Seneca Financial Corp.'s (Appellee Great
Seneca Financial) motion for summary judgment on Appellee Great
Seneca Financial’s complaint and (2) the order denying Appellant
Yamura’s motion to reconsider the order granting Appellee Great

Seneca Financial’s motion for summary judgment.
Pursuant to BRS § 641-1(a) (1993), appeals are

allowed in civil matters from all final judgments,
orders, or decrees of circuit and district courts.
district court cases, a judgment includes any order

from which an appeal’ lies.
ceding, leaving nothing furthe:
be_accomplished. When a written judgment, order, or
decree ends the litigation by fully deciding all’ rights
and liabilities of all parties, leaving nothing further
to be adjudicated, the judgment, order, or decree is

final and appealable

In

considered by: Moon, C.J-, Levinson, Nakayama, Acobs, and buffy, JJ
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
Casumpang v. IL, Local 142, 91 Hawai'i 425, 426, 984 P.2d 1251,
1252 (1999) (citations, internal quotation marks, and footnote
omitted) (emphasis added).

The district court, the Honorable Hilary B. Gangnes _
presiding, has not yet entered a final written order that
resolves Appellant Yamura’s counterclaim, and, thus, ends the
proceeding, leaving nothing further to be adjudicated. See HRS
§ 641-1(a) (1993); Haw. Dist. Ct. R. Civ. P. 587 Haw. R. App. P.
4(a) (5). Therefore, Appellant Yamura’s appeal is premature and
we lack appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly,

If IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for
lack of appellate jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 16, 2006.

FOR THE COURT:

decease CT ela one

Associate Justice