Opinion ID: 2544339
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedural Issues on Appeal

Text: Gonsalves argues that the circuit court erred by denying his request for entry of default under Rule 55(a) because Nissan failed to respond to his amended pleading. HRCP Rule 55(a) provides that when a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party's default. (Emphasis added.) This court has explained that [w]here we have patterned a rule of procedure after an equivalent rule within the FRCP, interpretations of the rule `by the federal courts are deemed to be highly persuasive in the reasoning of this court.' Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Products, 86 Hawai`i 214, 251-52, 948 P.2d 1055, 1092-93 (1997) (citation omitted). In First Hawaiian Bank v. Powers, 93 Hawaii 174, 998 P.2d 55 (2000), the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) examined the phrase otherwise defend in the District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 55(a), which is identical to HRCP Rule 55(a), by considering the interpretation of the similar FRCP Rule 55(a): Rule 55(a) obviously refers to and is designed to operate at the initial stages of a lawsuit. A complaint (or third party complaint, counterclaim, or cross-claim) is served and the party who is served must either plead, otherwise defend, or suffer a default. The rule is written in the disjunctive. By its express language it authorizes a default only if a party fails to plead or otherwise defend. Therefore, once a party has pleaded, or has otherwise defended, may that party's subsequent conduct, such [as] a failure to appear at trial or a failure to comply with discovery requests, be considered a subsequent failure to otherwise defend so as to justify the entry of a default under Rule 55(a)? The proper answer is no. There is no need for this type of expansive interpretation of Rule 55(a). 93 Hawai`i 174, 185, 998 P.2d 55, 66 (App. 2000) (quoting 10 Moore's Federal Practice § 55.10[2][b] at 55-12.1 (3d ed.1998)). In addition, the ICA noted that [s]ome courts have properly recognized that Rule 55(a)'s `otherwise defend' language may not be extended to justify a dismissal once there has been an initial responsive pleading or an initial action that constitutes a defense. Id. Here, given Nissan's rigorous defense against Gonsalves's complaint, as evidenced by its multiple pleadings and motions, it cannot be said that default pursuant to HRCP Rule 55(a) is warranted. HRCP Rule 55(a) did not intend failure to file a pleading to vitiate the existence of months of trial. Indeed, this court has observed that, [g]enerally, default judgments are not favored because they do not afford parties an opportunity to litigate claims or defenses on the merits. In re Genesys Data Technologies, Inc., 95 Hawai`i 33, 40, 18 P.3d 895, 902 (2001) (citation omitted). Moreover, Gonsalves is unable to specify why, given the issues raised on appeal, the record is incomplete. Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonsalves's motion.
Gonsalves argues that the circuit court improperly denied his motion for leave to file a second amended and supplemental complaint in order to clarify his claims. Relatedly, Gonsalves argues that the circuit court erred by giving a verdict form without Gonsalves's negligence claim. In pertinent part, HRCP Rule 15(a) provides that a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. In interpreting this rule, this court has looked to the general standard applied by federal courts: In the absence of any apparent or declared reasonsuch as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.the leave sought should, as the rules requires, be freely given. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 89 Hawai`i 157, 162, 969 P.2d 1275, 1280 (1998) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)). Here, the circuit court explained its decision to deny Gonsalves's motion to amend his complaint: In terms of the motion to file second amended and supplemental complaint, I'm going to deny it. I think that thethe evidence that was presented is basically part and parcel of claims that have already been pled, in particular the sex discrimination and promissory estoppel claims. Gonsalves conceded that his motion to amend was simply to clarify his retaliation, negligence, and implied contract claims. Because Gonsalves's filed complaint sufficiently articulated those claims, an amendment was unnecessary or futile. Gonsalves was not precluded from arguing those claims, cf. HRCP Rule 15(b) (When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.), and in fact, the circuit court expressly stated in its denial that it was not foreclosing an implied contract claim based on Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 68 Haw. 594, 724 P.2d 110 (1986). Furthermore, the jury received instructions as to all of these claims. Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. With regard to the special verdict form, contrary to Gonsalves's assertion, the form did include Gonsalves's negligence claim. Assuming Gonsalves could prove a sex discrimination claim, that claim was premised on the negligence of Nissan in conducting a fair and thorough investigation. In addition, Gonsalves's claim that Nissan failed to abide by a proper standard of care was included in the defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Thus, the circuit court submitted a special verdict form adequately addressing the issues involved and did not abuse its discretion.