Opinion ID: 871238
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The circuit court had authority to dismiss Blaisdell's complaint without prejudice.

Text: HRCP Rule 4(b), which governs the requirements of service, states that the summons shall contain: (2) ... the names of the parties ... (3) be directed at the defendant, [and] . . . (5) state the time within which these rules require the defendant to appear and defend, and shall notify the defendant that in case of defendant's failure to do so judgment by default will be rendered against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint[.] HRCP Rule 4(b)(2)-(5) (2010). HRCP Rule 4(d) further requires that the summons and complaint be served together. HRCP Rule 4(d) (2010). However, since Blaisdell did not name any defendants in his complaint, the requirements of HRCP Rule 4 regarding the form of the summons were not met and the requisite service of process was not completed. As Blaisdell did not comply with HRCP Rule 4, the circuit court was authorized by HRCP Rule 41(b)(2) to sua sponte dismiss the complaint, provided that [s]uch dismissal may be set aside and the action or claim reinstated by order of the court for good cause shown upon motion duly filed not later than 10 days from the date of the order of dismissal. HRCP Rule 41(b)(2) (2010). Thus, the circuit court had authority to dismiss Blaisdell's complaint, subject to the ten day reinstatement motion and a finding of good cause. See id.