NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NOS. CAAP-19-0000391 and CAAP-20-0000442

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

CAAP-19-0000391

MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant,

v. 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

AS TRUSTEE; CIT BANK NA F/K/A ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.;

ALDRIDGE PITE LLP F/K/A PITE DUNCAN LLP,

Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 1-100, Defendants,

and 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR

RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST SERIES 2006-A8 MORTGAGE 

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-H,

Counterclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, and

DOES 1-20, Counterclaim Defendants,

and

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR INDYMAC 

BANK, F.S.B.; and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF MAUI,

Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-5; 

JANE DOES 1-5; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-5; 

DOE ASSOCIATIONS 1-5; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-5; and 

DOE ENTITIES 1-5, Third-Party Defendants,

and

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000391

07-JUN-2024

07:51 AM

Dkt. 183 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2

CAAP-20-0000442

MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant,

v. 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

AS TRUSTEE; CIT BANK NA F/K/A ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.;

ALDRIDGE PITE LLP F/K/A PITE DUNCAN LLP,

Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 1-100, Defendants,

and 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR

RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST SERIES 2006-A8 MORTGAGE 

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-H,

Counterclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, and

DOES 1-20, Counterclaim Defendants,

and

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR INDYMAC 

BANK, F.S.B.; and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF MAUI,

Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-5; 

JANE DOES 1-5; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-5; 

DOE ASSOCIATIONS 1-5; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-5; and 

DOE ENTITIES 1-5, Third-Party Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 2CC171000090)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Nakasone, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

These consolidated appeals arise out of litigation 

relating to a non-judicial foreclosure of real property (the 

Haʻikū property) that was owned by self-represented 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant Michael C. Greenspon 

(Greenspon). In CAAP-19-0000391, Greenspon appeals from the 

Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure [(HRCP)] Rule 54(b) Final 

Judgment Dismissing All Claims of the March 21, 2018 Second 

Amended Complaint (SAC) as to Defendant Aldridge Pite, LLP F/K/A 

Pite Duncan, LLP (AP), entered on July 23, 2019 (Rule 54(b) 

Judgment), by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

3

court).1 The Rule 54(b) Judgment, entered in favor of AP, 

dismissed all claims in the second amended complaint against AP.2 

In CAAP-20-0000442, Greenspon appeals from the Final 

Judgment (Judgment), entered on June 10, 2020, by the circuit 

court. The Judgment, entered in favor of CIT Bank NA F/K/A 

OneWest Bank, F.S.B. (CIT)3 and against Greenspon, dismissed all 

remaining claims in the second amended complaint.4 

1 The Honorable Peter T. Cahill presided. 

2 Greenspon appealed in CAAP-19-0000391 on May 17, 2019, from the 

following predicate orders:

1. Order Denying Plaintiff's January 8, 2018 Motion to 

Substitute Aldridge Pite, LLP for Defendant Cal-Western 

Reconveyance Corp., entered April 12, 2018;

2. Order Granting Defendant Aldridge Pite, LLP's Motion to 

Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed March 21, 2018, 

or, in the First Alternative, for Summary Judgment, or 

in the Second Alternative, for More Definite Statement, 

Filed May 3, 2018, entered August 13, 2018;

3. "Notice of Setting" (Order Denying in Part Greenspon's

August 27, 2018 "Rule 54(b) Motion to 1) Set Aside Rule

12(b)(6) Dismissal of Second Amended Complaint as to 

Aldridge Pite, LLP and to Bifurcate Claims, and/or 2) To 

Expressly Enter the Dismissal Order as Final"), entered 

September 20, 2018; and

4. Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 54(b) 

Certification of August 13, 2018 Order Dismissing Second 

Amended Complaint as to Defendant Aldridge Pite, LLP, 

entered April 29, 2019.

This court temporarily remanded the case to the circuit court for entry 

of the July 2020 Rule 54(b) Judgment. 

3 All claims against AP were previously dismissed pursuant to the 

Rule 54(b) Judgment, and all claims for and against Defendant/

Counterclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust 

(Deutsche Bank) were previously dismissed by stipulation. 

4 Greenspon's opening brief, in CAAP-20-0000442, also asserts 

points of error with respect to the following five predicate orders,

(continued . . .)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

4

Upon careful review of the record and relevant legal 

authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments 

advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve 

Greenspon's points of error5 as follows:

(1) Greenspon contends that the circuit court erred by 

dismissing the second amended complaint, and in failing to find 

that it adequately alleged claims against AP for: (1) "fraud and 

tortious litigation conduct"; (2) "patently illegal activities"; 

(3) "abusive collections practices"; (4) participating in 

"unfair methods of competition"; and (5) participating in a 

"fraud on the market" and "combination in restraint of trade in 

violation of [Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes] § 480-4[.]" 

4(. . . continued)

1. Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Summary 

Judgment RE: Counterclaim, Filed January 17, 2017,

entered June 6, 2017;

2. Order Denying Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Summary 

Judgment RE: Counterclaim, Filed February 14, 2018,

entered April 12, 2018;

3. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on 

SAC Claims for Wrongful Foreclosure and Unfair/Deceptive 

Practices, Filed April 18, 2018, entered August 6, 2018;

4. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment RE Wrongful Foreclosure as to Defendants 

CIT/DBNTC, Filed June 27, 2018, Without Prejudice,

entered January 30, 2019;

5. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant 

[CIT's] Motion For Terminating Sanctions, Filed April 3, 

2020, entered May 18, 2020 (Sanctions Order).

5 We have reordered and consolidated Greenspon's points of error in 

CAAP-19-0000391, and, with regard to CAAP-20-00000442, we limit our review to 

the dispositive point of error. See, infra, note 9.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

5

"A circuit court's ruling on a motion to dismiss is 

reviewed de novo." Sierra Club v. Dep't of Transp., 115 Hawaiʻi 

299, 312, 167 P.3d 292, 305 (2007) (citation omitted). 

[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state 

a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff 

can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim 

that would entitle him or her to relief. The appellate 

court must therefore view a plaintiff's complaint in a 

light most favorable to him or her in order to determine 

whether the allegations contained therein could warrant 

relief under any alternative theory. For this reason, in 

reviewing a circuit court's order dismissing a complaint

. . . the appellate court's consideration is strictly 

limited to the allegations of the complaint, and the 

appellate court must deem those allegations to be true. 

Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 143 Hawaiʻi 249, 257, 

428 P.3d 761, 769 (2018) (citation omitted). 

Here, Greenspon contends that the circuit court erred 

in dismissing his claims against AP, which provided legal 

counsel to an opposing party, Cal-Western, during the underlying 

litigation.6 Hungate v. Law Off. of David B. Rosen, 139 Hawaiʻi 

394, 413, 391 P.3d 1, 20 (2017) (abrogated on other grounds by 

State ex rel. Shikada v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 152 Hawaiʻi 

418, 526 P.3d 395 (2023)), is controlling. Hungate recognized 

that "absent special circumstances, attorneys owe no duty of 

care to non-clients." Id. at 405, 391 P.3d at 12. The Hungate

court thus "declined to recognize a duty in favor of a plaintiff 

6 To the extent that Greenspon's allegations against AP arise from 

Cal-Western's alleged actions in the non-judicial foreclosure of the Haʻikū

property, the record reflects that AP did not represent Cal-Western at the 

time of the non-judicial foreclosure. Cal-Western, which was dissolved in 

bankruptcy, is itself no longer a party to this action. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

6

adversely affected by an attorney's performance of legal 

services on behalf of the opposing party." Id. at 413, 391 P.3d 

at 20. 

Greenspon does not establish the basis, 

notwithstanding Hungate, for a statutory or other private right 

of action against an opposing party's legal counsel, based on 

actions taken by counsel in representing the opposing party's 

interests. The record reflects that Greenspon failed to state a 

claim against AP upon which relief could be granted, and the 

circuit court was not wrong in dismissing the claims against AP.

(2) Greenspon contends that the circuit court erred by 

denying Greenspon's motion to substitute AP for Cal-Western in 

the second amended complaint. We review the circuit court's 

ruling for abuse of discretion. See Price v. Coulson, No. CAAP17-0000609, 2019 WL 2417754, at *3 (Haw. App. June 10, 2019) 

(SDO). Greenspon contends that,

The circuit court erred by failing to find that [AP] used 

its dissolved former client, Defendant Cal-Western, as its 

alter-ego in its attempt to obstruct [Greenspon's] 

discovery and conceal its own liability for the acts 

alleged by [Greenspon's] [second amended complaint], and 

thus erred in denying [Greenspon's] HRCP Rule 25(c) motion 

to substitute [AP] for Cal-Western. 

AP's purported acquisition of Cal-Western assets 

during the bankruptcy proceedings does not, without more, make 

AP the "alter ego" of Cal-Western. "Generally speaking, the 

question whether a corporation is a mere agency, 

instrumentality, or alter ego of another corporation or 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

7

individual is one of fact." Robert's Hawaii School Bus, Inc. v. 

Laupahoehoe Transp. Co., Inc., 91 Hawaiʻi 224, 238, 982 P.2d 853, 

867 (1999) (superseded by statute on other grounds, citing 

1 William M. Fletcher, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private 

Corporations § 41.95, at 699-705 (perm. ed. 1999)). 

In Calipjo v. Purdy, 144 Hawaiʻi 266, 439 P.3d 218 

(2019), the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court recognized that, 

Courts have identified a variety of factors to determine 

whether a corporate entity is the alter ego of another, 

though no single factor is dispositive. In addition, a 

two-part test must be satisfied:

It must be made to appear that [1] the corporation is not 

only influenced and governed by that person, but that there 

is such a unity of interest . . . that the individuality, 

or separateness, of such person and corporation has ceased, 

and [2] that the facts are such that an adherence to the 

fiction of the separate existence of the corporation would, 

under the particular circumstances, sanction a fraud or 

promote injustice. 

Id. at 277, 439 P.3d at 229 (cleaned up). Greenspon failed to 

present any evidence establishing that AP and Cal-Western shared 

a "unity of interest," such that maintaining a corporate fiction 

of AP and Cal-Western's "separate existence" would "sanction a 

fraud or promote injustice." As discussed supra, the record 

reflects that AP's role in this litigation was solely to provide 

legal counsel for Cal-Western. AP, as legal counsel, and CalWestern, as the corporate client, were therefore separate 

entities. 

The circuit court did not err in denying Greenspon's 

motion to substitute AP for Cal-Western. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

8

(3) Greenspon contends that the circuit court erred by 

not holding an evidentiary hearing regarding his motion for 

reconsideration of the dismissal of his second amended 

complaint. "Decisions relating to the conduct of a trial or 

hearing and the adequacy of process usually involve the exercise 

of discretion, and thus warrant review under the abuse of 

discretion standard on appeal." TSA Int'l Ltd. v. Shimizu 

Corp., 92 Hawaiʻi 243, 252, 990 P.2d 713, 722 (1999). Greenspon 

has not alleged any new facts that would support his motion for 

reconsideration, and the circuit court did not abuse its 

discretion in determining that, given the voluminous record of 

motions, papers, and exhibits, a further hearing would not be 

beneficial to the court's decision-making process. The circuit 

court therefore did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the 

motion for reconsideration without a hearing.

(4) In CAAP-20-0000442, Greenspon contends that the 

circuit court erred in dismissing the second amended complaint, 

on grounds that Greenspon failed to comply with discovery rules 

and orders. We review the circuit court's dismissal of the 

second amended complaint for an abuse of discretion.

The circuit court is given broad discretion in determining 

the sanctions to be imposed pursuant to HRCP Rule 37(b)(2). 

A trial court's imposition of a discovery abuse sanction is 

reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. A trial 

court abuses its discretion whenever it exceeds the bounds 

of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or 

practice to the substantial detriment of a party. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

9

Aloha Unlimited, Inc. v. Coughlin, 79 Hawaiʻi 527, 532-33, 904 

P.2d 541, 546-47 (App. 1995) (cleaned up). 

Pursuant to HRCP Rule 37, the circuit court may 

sanction a party for its willful disobedience with respect to 

discovery orders, including the issuance of an order "dismissing 

the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a 

judgment by default against the disobedient party[.]" HRCP 

37(b)(2)(C). In determining the appropriateness of dismissal, 

the court will consider: "(1) the public's interest in the 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to 

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." 

W.H. Shipman, Ltd. v. Hawaiian Holiday Macadamia Nut Co., Inc., 

8 Haw. App. 354, 362, 802 P.2d 1203, 1207 (App. 1990). 

"Dismissal with prejudice is not an abuse of 

discretion when a plaintiff's deliberate delay or contumacious 

conduct causes actual prejudice." Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 

368, 382, 465 P.3d 815, 829 (2020) (citation omitted). In Erum

the supreme court overturned the dismissal of appellant's 

complaint when appellant failed to appear at a pretrial 

conference. The supreme court held that, 

[W]henever a case is involuntarily dismissed with 

prejudice, the trial court must state essential findings on 

the record or make written findings as to deliberate delay 

or contumacious conduct and actual prejudice and explain 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

10

why a lesser sanction than dismissal with prejudice is 

insufficient to serve the interests of justice. 

Erum, 147 Hawaiʻi at 390, 465 P.3d at 837.

This case is distinguishable from JK v. DK, 153 Hawaiʻi 

268, 533 P.3d 1215 (2023), which concluded, on the record of 

that case, that the trial court abused its discretion by 

entering a default judgment as a discovery sanction. Id. at 

278, 533 P.3d at 1225. Here, the discovery sanction against 

Greenspon was warranted; Greenspon was afforded multiple 

warnings that his noncompliance and contemptuous behavior would 

result in sanctions. 

The record reflects that the circuit court made 

extensive findings7 regarding Greenspon's contumacious conduct 

with respect to, inter alia, the site inspection of the Haʻikū

property, and opposing counsel's attempts to depose him:

The Site Inspection

12. On or around May 15, 2017, Mr. Rosen noticed an 

inspection of the [Haʻikū] Property for June 14, 2017. The 

inspection did not occur that day. Efforts to reschedule 

7 In its May 18, 2020 Sanctions Order, the circuit court 

incorporated from Civil No. 2CC141000395 its May 18, 2020 Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting the Motion For Rule 37 Sanctions, 

filed by Defendants/Third-Party Defendants David B. Rosen, Esq. and the Law 

Office of David B. Rosen, and joined by CIT, against Greenspon (FOF/COL). 

Civil No. 2CC141000395 is a closely related case, involving the same parties; 

the findings of fact and conclusions of law reference the site inspection and 

Greenspon's deposition, as discussed herein, that were part of Civil No. 

2CC1710000090.

As the FOF/COL have already been adopted and incorporated into 

the record of this case, we deny as unnecessary AP's request, filed on 

May 28, 2020, in CAAP-19-0000391, for this court to take judicial notice of 

the FOF/COL. We also deny AP's request for this court to take judicial 

notice of other orders filed in Civ. No. 2CC171000090 as unnecessary. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

11

proved unsuccessful and futile because Mr. Greenspon 

refused to allow Mr. Rosen or counsel for CIT to inspect 

the [Haʻikū] Property.

13. On September 11, 2018, Deutsche Bank moved in 

[2CC171000090] to compel an inspection of the [Haʻikū] 

Property. The Court granted the motion on December 21, 

2018, ordering that the inspection be permitted and that it 

occur between April 1 and April 30, 2019.

14. On February 19, 2019, Mr. Greenspon moved for 

relief from the December 21, 2018 order and sought, among 

other things, to have the inspection scheduled for April 

15-19, 2019, April 29-30, 2019, or August 1-20, 2019. 

15. On February 22, 2019, the Court ordered that the 

site inspection occur on one of the dates requested by Mr. 

Greenspon. The Court entered a written order (the 

"[2CC171000090] Inspection Order") on March 14, 2019, 

directing, among other things, that "[e]ach party is 

permitted to have one (1) attorney and one (1) expert 

(e.g., a real estate consultant, an engineer or an 

appraiser) attend the Inspection." 

16. On July 1, 2019, CIT moved in this action for an 

inspection of the [Haʻikū] Property. The Court denied the 

motion but ordered that the [2CC171000090] Inspection Order 

would be effective in this action.

17. At the August 5, 2019 hearing, the Court warned 

Mr. Greenspon that the inspection must occur, and there 

would be consequences, up to and including dismissal, if he 

failed to comply with the orders. 

18. Deutsche Bank made efforts to schedule the site 

inspection and, on August 16, 2019, informed Mr. Greenspon 

that it would occur on August 19, 2019. In a subsequent 

communication, Mr. Greenspon stated that he would not allow 

the inspection to occur on that date. The Court's clerk 

subsequently informed the parties that the August 19, 2019 

inspection would be canceled due to safety concerns, 

because Mr. Greenspon would not allow it to take place.

19. On July 24, 2019, the Rosen Defendants moved for 

discovery relief, and on October 16, 2019, the Court 

entered an order (the "Consolidated Case Inspection Order") 

granting the motion in part and stating that the 

inspection: (a) would occur prior to December 31, 2019; and 

(b) shall be conducted, but for the presence of a special 

master, pursuant to the [2CC171000090] Inspection Order. 

The Rosen Defendants noticed the inspection for 

December 19, 2019.

20. The Consolidated Case Inspection Order and 

[2CC171000090] Inspection Order permitted Mr. Rosen and 

attorneys for Defendants to attend the site inspection.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

12

21. At a December 18, 2019 hearing, Mr. Greenspon 

requested a continuance of the site inspection. The Court 

denied the request, stated that it would occur as noticed, 

and warned Mr. Greenspon to comply with the inspection 

orders or face consequences. Mr. Greenspon responded to 

the Court that, irrespective of its order, he would NEVER

allow the inspection. 

22. Late in the afternoon on December 18, 2019, Mr. 

Greenspon informed Mr. Rosen that he would not be permitted 

to participate in the site inspection. Plaintiff failed to 

present any evidence that Mr. Rosen threatened him 

regarding the [Haʻikū] Property.

23. On December 19, 2019, Mr. Greenspon refused to 

allow CIT's counsel and one of Deutsche Bank's attorneys to 

participate in the site inspection.

. . . .

The Events of January 15, 2020

25. On October 16, 2019, the Court ordered Mr. 

Greenspon to appear for his deposition between the dates of 

January 15-31, 2020.

26. On November 5, 2019, the Court ordered that Mr. 

Greenspon's deposition be conducted on January 15, 2020, 

beginning at 9:00 a.m. On or around January 6, 2020, the 

Rosen Defendants filed an amended notice for Mr. 

Greenspon's deposition for that date and time.

27. On January 9, 2020, CIT filed and served its 

Designation of Alternative Method of Recording Deposition 

Testimony that provided, among other things, that Mr. 

Greenspon's deposition would be video recorded at CIT's 

sole cost and expense.

28. Mr. Greenspon appeared approximately 19 minutes 

after the designated time that the Court set for the 

deposition [to] begin (9:19 am versus 9:00 am), refused to 

be sworn in, and would not proceed unless the video 

recording stopped. Mr. Greenspon exhibited clear and 

unequivocally hostile and verbally abusive conduct towards 

Mr. Rosen and CIT's counsel. Mr. Rosen and the court 

reporter, an innocent victim of the hostile and verbally 

abusive conduct, requested on multiple occasions that Mr. 

Greenspon not speak over counsel and to refrain from 

screaming. Ultimately, the record and video recording at 

one point reflects that the court reporter left the room 

and refused to further participate in the proceedings.

29. Late in the morning of January 15, 2020, the 

Court conducted a status conference regarding the 

deposition. On the record at that conference, the Court 

stated that "[t]he deposition will proceed pursuant to the 

Court's order and pursuant to the notices that have been 

served."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

13

30. After returning to the court reporter's office 

to resume the deposition, Mr. Greenspon continued to refuse 

to be video recorded. 

31. Mr. Greenspon then donned a mask. The mask that 

Mr. Greenspon wore had a clear photograph of CIT's 

counsel's face on it. There can be no mistake that the 

mask worn by Mr. Greenspon had no health benefits, predated any COVID-19 requirements, had to be the result of 

premeditated planning, and had the intent to disrupt the 

deposition proceedings.

32. After Mr. Greenspon repeatedly disrupted the 

deposition, Mr. Rosen terminated the proceedings at 

approximately 12:20 p.m.

(Emphasis in original) (record citations omitted).

The above findings,8 as supported by the record 

evidence, support the circuit court's conclusions that, inter 

alia, 

6. . . . Mr. Greenspon has consistently violated 

orders requiring him to comply with discovery requests. He 

has unequivocally stated to the Court that he intends not 

to comply with said orders despite being advised of the 

potential consequences, including the dismissal of his 

actions. Thus, further motions practice would be useless 

because Mr. Greenspon cast a die of his own making. 

. . . .

7. . . . Mr. Greenspon's failure to follow [the 

circuit court's] orders, specifically as to the site 

inspection and his deposition, deprived the Remaining 

Defendants of information material to their defense of Mr. 

Greenspon's claims and damages, and that such actions 

constitute a sizeable threat to the rightful decision of 

this case. . . . 

. . . .

9. The Court concludes that: (a) despite having 

brought the remaining claims in these Consolidated Actions 

against the Remaining Defendants, Mr. Greenspon has 

wrongfully failed to provide and/or permit reasonable and 

material discovery requested by them and ordered by this 

Court; (b) Mr. Greenspon's actions caused delay; and (c) 

8 "Findings of fact . . . that are not challenged on appeal are 

binding on the appellate court." Okada Trucking Co., Ltd. v. Bd. of Water 

Supply, 97 Hawaiʻi 450, 458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

14

Mr. Greenspon's conduct was willful, contumacious, and 

inexcusable. . . .

. . . .

11. The Court has on multiple occasions warned Mr. 

Greenspon to comply with discovery orders or face 

sanctions, up to and including dismissal. Mr. Greenspon 

nevertheless violated the Court's orders as to the site 

inspection and deposition. He has demonstrated a 

consistent contumacious and contentious attitude towards 

discovery in this action. The donning of a mask bearing 

the picture of an attorney in the case bears heavily on 

this Court's conclusion that it cannot guarantee the 

orderliness of proceedings or the continuing safety of 

those participating including court personnel.

On this record, we conclude that the circuit court did 

not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second amended 

complaint.9 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit 

court's July 23, 2019 Rule 54(b) Judgment, and June 10, 2020 

Judgment. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 7, 2024.

On the briefs:

Michael C. Greenspon, 

Self-represented 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim

Defendant-Appellant.

Christina C. MacLeod,

for Defendant-Appellee.

Jenny J.N.A. Nakamoto,

For Defendant-Appellee.

9 Given our conclusion that the circuit court properly dismissed 

Greenspon's claims pursuant to HRCP Rule 37, we need not reach the additional 

points of error raised in CAAP-20-0000442.

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Presiding Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry

Associate Judge