Opinion ID: 2506328
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1 (1993 & Supp.2007) authorizes appeals to the ICA from final judgments, orders, or decrees[.] HRS § 641-1(a). Appeals under HRS § 641-1 shall be taken in the manner ... provided by the rules of court. HRS § 641-1(c). Rule 58 of the Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP), requires that [e]very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document. Based on this requirement, the supreme court 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). [I]f a judgment purports to be the final judgment in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties, the judgment (a) must specifically identify the party or parties for and against whom the judgment is entered, and (b) must (i) identify the claims for which it is entered, and (ii) dismiss any claims not specifically identified[.] Id. On its face, the September 12, 2008 Judgment resolves all claims against all parties by doing the following:  expressly entering judgment in favor of Petitioners-Plaintiffs and against Respondent-Defendant City Clerk on the claim for a preliminary and permanent injunction;  expressly entering judgment in favor of Respondent-Defendant City Clerk and against Petitioners-Plaintiffs on all remaining claims which claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice; and  expressly dismissing any claims not specifically identified by providing that [a]ny remaining parties and/or claims are dismissed. Therefore, the September 12, 2008 Judgment satisfies the requirements for an appealable final judgment under HRS § 641-1(a), HRCP Rule 58, and the holding in Jenkins. Stop Rail timely filed their Notice of Appeal on September 12, 2008. See HRAP Rule 4(a)(1). Accordingly, it appears that the ICA has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to HRS § 641-1(a). [5] The City Clerk argues that this court lacks jurisdiction for two reasons: (1) Stop Rail filed the Notice of Appeal before the Circuit Court entered a written order that disposed of Stop Rail's Motion For Partial Reconsideration; and (2) When the Circuit Court entered the Judgment, the Circuit Court resolved Stop Rail's prayer for a permanent injunction even though the Circuit Court had not previously entered an order adjudicating the request for a permanent injunction. With respect to the first argument, we note that the Motion for Partial Reconsideration did not request reconsideration of the Judgment; it merely requested reconsideration of the Amended Order, which, by itself, was a non-appealable interlocutory order. HRCP Rule 59(e) refers only to reconsideration of a judgment. [6] HRCP Rule 54(b) is applicable to the reconsideration of a pre-judgment interlocutory order, because HRCP Rule 54(b) provides that an order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. The tolling provision in HRAP Rule 4(a)(3) applies to a motion to reconsider a judgment, not an interlocutory order. Thus, Stop Rail's Motion for Partial Reconsideration did not invoke the tolling provision in HRAP Rule 4(a)(3) and the City Clerk's first argument fails. We also reject the City Clerk's second argument that the ICA lacks appellate jurisdiction because the Judgment resolved Stop Rail's request for a permanent injunction before the Circuit Court actually adjudicated it. The Circuit Court's error, if any, in granting a permanent injunction does not impact the issue of appellate jurisdiction. An appeal will not be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction merely because a trial court erred in its adjudication of a substantive issue. Instead, an appeal from any judgment will be dismissed ... [for lack of jurisdiction] if the judgment does not, on its face, either resolve all claims against all parties or contain the finding necessary for certification under HRCP [Rule] 54(b). Jenkins, 76 Hawai`i at 119, 869 P.2d at 1338. As long as the judgment, on its face, resolves all claims against all parties, the judgment is an appealable final judgment. The issue of whether the judgment incorrectly resolves any of the substantive claims is irrelevant to the issue of appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, we conclude that the ICA has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to HRS § 641-1(a).