Opinion ID: 2630997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Former Employees' Contentions

Text: The Former Employees present two points of error-namely, that the circuit court erred in (1) denying their motion for leave to sue Receiver Park and (2) granting Hawaii Ventures' motion for entry of the second amended final judgment and entering the second amended final judgment. The Former Employees believe that the circuit court's denial of their motion for leave to, inter alia, sue Receiver Park precluded them from pursuing meritorious claims against the Receiver. The Former Employees also contend that the circuit court's entry of the second amended final judgment left them with no claims to pursue against the Receiver. In response, Receiver Park maintains that the circuit court properly denied the motion for leave to sue because: (1) the Former Employees should have intervened in the action; (2) their claims were barred by the rule against splitting a cause of action [43] and by the law of the case; [44] (3) the Former Employees failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits; and, (4) even if this court determines that a justiciable controversy exists and grants the cross-appeal, no relief can be sought where the Receiver has been discharged and the only remaining asset in the Estate is the $150,000.00 held by the court in reserve for further fees and costs of the Receiver. On the other hand, Hawaii Ventures argues, inter alia, that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the cross-appeal because the Former Employees' notice of cross-appeal was untimely filed. Hawaii Ventures further contends that the Former Employees failed to show that their interests were not adequately protected by ILWU. Before this court can address the Former Employees' points challenging the circuit court's denial of their motion for leave to sue the Receiver, we must initially determine: (1) whether this court has appellate jurisdiction; and (2) whether the Former Employees have standing to appeal in the first instance. Hawai`i Med. Ass'n v. Hawai`i Med. Serv. Ass'n, 113 Hawai`i 77, 94, 148 P.3d 1179, 1196 (2006) (It is well-settled that courts must determine as a threshold matter whether they have jurisdiction to decide the issues presented. If a party is found to lack standing, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the action. (Citations omitted.)).
As previously stated, Hawaii Ventures argues that the Former Employees' cross-appeal was untimely filed on September 24, 2004  after the second amended final judgment was entered on August 24, 2004. According to Hawaii Ventures, the Former Employees should have filed their notice of cross-appeal immediately after the July 22, 2001 [circuit] court order denying their motion to intervene and sue the [R]eceiver and not after the second amended final judgment. [45] Consequently, Hawaii Ventures maintains that this court does not have appellate jurisdiction to review the Former Employees' contentions. We cannot agree. Generally, in a civil case, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment, order, or decree of the circuit court. HRS § 641-1(a) (Supp.2006). In a foreclosure case, however, an appeal may be taken from: (1) A judgment entered on a decree of foreclosure[;] (2) A judgment entered on an order confirming the sale of the foreclosed property, if the circuit court expressly finds that no just reason for delay exists, and certified the judgment as final pursuant to [HRCP R]ule 54(b) . . .; and (3) A deficiency judgment; provided that no appeal from a deficiency judgment shall raise issues relating to the judgment debtor's liability for the deficiency judgment (as opposed to the amount of the deficiency judgment), nor shall the appeal affect the finality of the transfer of title to the foreclosed property pursuant to the order confirming sale. HRS § 667-51(a) (Supp.2006). An appeal may also be taken from a post-foreclosure order disposing of an HRCP 60(b) (2007) [46] motion relating to the final foreclosure judgment and its accompanying orders, Beneficial Hawai`i, Inc. v. Casey, 98 Hawai`i 159, 165, 45 P.3d 359, 365 (2002), and from an order finally determining all matters incident to enforcement of the foreclosure judgment, Hoge v. Kane, 4 Haw.App. 246, 247, 663 P.2d 645, 646-47 (1983). Clearly, the July 22, 2001 order denying the Former Employees' motion for leave does not fall within any of the above categories, thereby rendering the order appealable. Indeed, the Former Employees attempted to appeal the order prior to the entry of final judgment; however, this court dismissed the appeal as premature. Consequently, the Former Employees were required to await the conclusion of the case and the entry of final judgment before filing their notice of appeal. Ueoka v. Szymanski, 107 Hawai`i 386, 396, 114 P.3d 892, 902 (2005) (An appeal from a final judgment brings up for review all interlocutory orders not appealable directly as of right which deal with issues in the case. (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)). Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the order denying the motion for leave to sue the Receiver is a final appealable order, the Former Employees' appeal from the second amended final judgment does not preclude this court's review. See Kukui Nuts of Hawai`i, Inc. v. R. Baird & Co., 7 Haw.App. 598, 617, 789 P.2d 501, 514 (1990) ([W]here relief can be afforded from the terms of a collateral order upon appeal from the final judgment, the collateral order may be reviewed at that time, and the right to appeal the collateral order is not forfeited because it was not appealed from when it was entered. (Citations omitted.)); Hoopai v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 106 Hawai`i at 215, 103 P.3d at 375 (holding that failure to take an immediate appeal did not preclude this court's review because the appeal from final judgment can afford relief). Accordingly, assuming the Former Employees have standing, the filing is timely.
Generally, the requirements of standing to appeal are: (1) the person must first have been a party to the action; (2) the person seeking modification of the order or judgment must have had standing to oppose it in the [circuit] court; and (3) such person must be aggrieved by the ruling, i.e., the person must be one who is affected or prejudiced by the appealable order. Kepo`o v. Watson, 87 Hawai`i 91, 95, 952 P.2d 379, 383 (1998) (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted) (emphasis added); see also Stewart Props., Inc. v. Brennan, 8 Haw.App. 431, 433, 807 P.2d 606, 607 (1991) (stating that [a] well-settled rule is that only parties to a lawsuit may appeal an adverse judgment) (citation, internal quotation marks, and ellipsis omitted). Here, almost one year after their termination on June 17, 2001, the Former Employees, without filing a motion to intervene in the foreclosure action, filed a motion for leave to sue Receiver Park in her official capacity as the receiver for alleged unpaid wages  consisting of pre-receivership vacation and severance pay. On July 22, 2002, the circuit court denied the Former Employees' motion. Subsequently, the Former Employees appealed from the second amended final judgment, wherein they challenge the circuit court's July 22, 2002 order denying their motion, as well as the order granting Hawaii Ventures' motion for entry of the second amended final judgment and the second amended final judgment. Having failed to intervene pursuant to HRCP Rule 24 (2007), [47] the Former Employees do not meet the first prong of the standing requirements recited in Kepo`o, i.e., the person must first have been a party to the action. 87 Hawai`i at 95, 952 P.2d at 383 (citation omitted); see also Bacerra v. MacMillan, 111 Hawai`i 117, 119-20, 138 P.3d 749, 751-52 (2006) (holding that, by failing to properly intervene in the patient's medical malpractice action against health care providers, the employee medical benefit trust fund lacked standing to appeal the circuit court's dismissal of its notice of lien on settlement proceeds). Accordingly, we hold that the Former Employees lack standing to appeal. Consequently, their cross-appeal is dismissed.