N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-20-0000036

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

JAMES JONATHON DRISCOLL aka JAMES JONATHAN DRISCOLL; GEORGE M. KAIMIOLA; and ZILPAH K. KAIMIOLA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, ALLEN B. ARAKAWA; and DEBBIE E. ARAKAWA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., GEORGE MATIC; MILENA MATIC; ALEKSANDRA O. MATIC; STEVEN MATIC; SIMON T. NGAN; JILL S.A. NGAN; AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B.; JASON C. BALBERDI; NAHINU R. FREITAS; THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Defendants-Appellees, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, Defendants

A PPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 2CC191000167(1))

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that we lack appellate jurisdiciton over Plaintiffs-Appellees Allen B. Arakawa and Debbie E. Arakawa's (the Arakawas) appeal from the Honorable Rhonda I.L. Loo's January 8, 2020 interlocutory order granting Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant/Appellee Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America) and Defendant-Appellee Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s motion to partially dismiss the Arakawas and Plaintiffs-Appellees James Jonathon Driscoll (Driscoll), George M. Kaimiola and Zilpah K. Kaimiola's (the Kaimiolas) first amended complaint and sever their claims, because the circuit court has neither resolved all of the Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-20-0000036 04-MAY-2020 09:53 AMN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### multiple claims in this case nor reduced its dispositive rulings to an appealable final judgment.

An aggrieved party cannot obtain appellate review of a circuit court's dispositive orders in a civil case pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a)(2016) until the circuit court reduces the dispositive rulings to an appealable final judgment pursuant to Rules 58 or 54(b) of the Hawai # i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP). See Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai # i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994). All of the parties apparently agree that the circuit court has not yet adjudicated and entered a judgment on all of the multiple claims asserted in:

• the Kaimiolas, Driscoll, and the Arakawas' June 17, 2019 first amended complaint,

• Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Appellee Jason C.Balberdi Balberdi's September 30, 2019 crossclaim,

• Defendants/Cross-Claim Plaintiffs/Appellees Simon T. Ngan and Jill S.A. Ngan's September 30, 2019 cross-claim,

• Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Appellee AmericanSavings Bank, F.S.B.'s October 2, 2019 crossclaim,

• Defendants/Cross-Claim Plaintiffs/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellees George Matic, Milena Matic, Aleksandra O. Matic, and Steven Matic's (the Matics) October 25, 2019 cross-claim, and

• the Matics' October 25, 2019 third-party complaint.

Nevertheless, the Arakawas assert in their February 20, 2020 statement of jurisdiction that, to the limited extent that the January 8, 2020 interlocutory order severs the Arakawas' claims pursuant to HRCP Rule 21, the January 8, 2020 interlocutory order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine and the Forgay doctrine. However, our review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the January 8, 2020 interlocutory

2N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### order does not satisfy the multiple requirements for appealability under the collateral order doctrine or the Forgay doctrine. See Greer v. Baker, 137 Hawai # i 249, 253, 369 P.3d 832, 836 (2016) (reciting the requirements for appeals under the collateral order doctrine and the Forgay doctrine); Hofmann v. De Marchena Kaluche & Asociados, 642 F.3d 995, 998 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that the collateral order doctrine does not provide appellate jurisdiction for a severance order issued under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); cf. In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 182–185 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that a district court's order severing claims and directing that they continue as separate actions in bankruptcy court was not an appealable final order). Absent an appealable final judgment, we lack appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellate court case number CAAP-20-0000036 is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, May 4, 2020.
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

3