NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000597

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

HARVEY HAKODA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

 RUSSELL D. YANG, M.D., Defendant-Appellee, and

DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 1CC181001450)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Chan and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears we lack appellate

jurisdiction over self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Harvey

Hakoda's (Hakoda) appeal from the circuit court's September 23,

2020 oral order (Order) granting an August 27, 2020 "Motion to

Withdraw as Counsel for [Hakoda] by Law Offices of Ian L. Mattoch

and The Markam Group., Inc., P.S.," in Civil No. 1CC181001450. 

The Order is not appealable, regardless of its

contents, because an "oral decision is not an appealable order." 

KNG Corp. v. Kim, 107 Hawai#i 73, 77, 110 P.3d 397, 401 (2005);

see Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(1)

("[T]he notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after

entry of the judgment or appealable order."); HRAP Rule 4(a)(5)

("A judgment or order is entered when it is filed in the office

of the clerk of the court.").

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000597

14-OCT-2020

09:50 AM

Dkt. 6 ODSLJ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Even if the Order was written, it would not be

appealable because it is interlocutory and does not fall within

an exception to the final judgment requirement. The circuit

court has not entered an appealable, final judgment in this case. 

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a) (2016) authorizes

appeals from "final judgments, orders, or decrees[.]" Appeals

under HRS § 641-1 "shall be taken in the manner . . . provided by

the rules of the court." HRS § 641-1(c) (2016). Hawai#i Rules

of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 58 requires that "[e]very judgment

shall be set forth on a separate document." The Supreme Court of

Hawai#i has held that "[a]n appeal may be taken . . . only after

the orders have been reduced to a judgment and the judgment has

been entered in favor of and against the appropriate parties

pursuant to HRCP [Rule] 58[.]" Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming

& Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994). Here,

the circuit court has not entered a final judgment and,

therefore, the Order is interlocutory. 

The Order, even if reduced to writing, also would not

fall under an exception to the final judgment requirement set

forth in Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. 201 (1848), the collateral

order doctrine, or HRS § 641-1(b). See Ciesla v. Reddish, 78

Hawai#i 18, 20, 889 P.2d 702, 704 (1995) (requirements for

appealability under the Forgay doctrine); Abrams v. Cades,

Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai#i 319, 322, 966 P.2d 631, 634

(1998) (requirements for appealability under the collateral order

doctrine); HRS § 641-1(b) (2016) (requirements for an appeal from

an interlocutory order). See also Chuck v. St. Paul Fire and

Marine Ins. Co., 61 Haw. 552, 606 P.2d 1320 (1980) (declining to

extend the collateral order doctrine to allow immediate appeal

from an order granting disqualification of counsel); Gomes v.

Heirs of Kauwe, 52 Haw. 126, 472 P.2d 119 (1970) (holding that

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

orders denying disqualification of counsel are interlocutory and

not appealable under the collateral order rule). 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is

dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 14, 2020.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan

Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

3