Source: http://hi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140310_0000395.HI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-26 20:48:04
Document Index: 756992203

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 641', '§ 641', '§ 641', '§ 641', '§ 641', '§ 641', '§ 641']

(2) the September 16, 2013 "Order Denying Motion to Reconsider Entry of Default, "
Because the circuit court has not yet entered an appealable final judgment on all claims pursuant to Rule 58 of the Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP).
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a) (1993 & Supp. 2013) authorizes appeals to the intermediate court of appeals only from final judgments, orders, or decrees. Appeals under HRS § 641-1 "shall be taken in the manner . . . provided by the rules of court." HRS § 641-l(c). HRCP Rule 58 requires that "[e]very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document." The Supreme Court of Hawai'i holds " [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). "Thus, based on Jenkins and HRCP Rule 58, an order is not appealable, even if it resolves all claims against the parties, until it has been reduced to a separate judgment." Carlisle v. One (1) Boat, 119 Hawai'i 245, 254, 195 P.3d 1177, 1186 (2008). When interpreting the requirements for an appealable final judgment under HRS § 641-1(a) and HRCP Rule 58, the Supreme Court of Hawai'i has explained that
Jenkins, 76 Hawai'i at 119, 869 P.2d at 1338 (original emphasis). "An appeal from an order that is not reduced to a judgment in favor or against the party by the time the record is filed in the supreme court will be dismissed." Id. at 120, 869 P.2d at 1339 (footnote omitted). The record on appeal for appellate court case number CAAP-13-0004250 was filed on November 26, 2013, and the circuit court has not yet entered a separate judgment in this case. Absent a separate judgment, the two interlocutory orders are not eligible for appellate review.
Although, exceptions to the final judgment requirement exist under the Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. 201 (1848), doctrine (the Forgay doctrine), the collateral order doctrine, and HRS § 641-1(b), the two interlocutory orders do not satisfy the requirements for appealability under the Forgay doctrine, the collateral order doctrine, and HRS § 641-1(b). See Ciesla v. Reddish, 78 Hawai'i 18, 20, 889 P.2d 702, 704 (1995) (regarding the two requirements for appealability under the Forgay doctrine); Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai'i 319, 322, 966 P.2d 631, 634 (1998) (regarding the three requirements for appealability under the collateral order doctrine); HRS § 641-1(b) (regarding the requirements for an appeal from an interlocutory order). Therefore, the two interlocutory orders are not appealable orders. Absent an appealable separate judgment, Appellant Louie's appeal is premature, and we lack appellate jurisdiction over appellate court case number CAAP-13-0004250.