Court Opinion

ID: 9374286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 18:04:03.158073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.227324
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                  Electronically Filed
                                                  Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                  CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                  22-FEB-2023
                                                  07:51 AM
                                                  Dkt. 32 SO

                           NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

                ROBERT C. PANG, Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                  v.
                CAESAR SMITH, JR., Defendant-Appellee

         APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                          HONOLULU DIVISION
                       (CASE No. 1RC171005017)

                      SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
   (By:    Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

            Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Robert C. Pang
appeals from the "Judgment re: Counterclaim" in favor of
Defendant-Appellee Caesar Smith, Jr. entered by the District
Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, on May 23, 2018.1
For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
          On July 27, 2017, Pang filed a complaint against Smith
for breach of a rental agreement. The district court minutes
show that a self-represented Smith entered a general denial on
August 14, 2017, and was given leave to file a counterclaim by
August 31, 2017. A pretrial conference was held on January 29,
2018.
          Smith did not file a counterclaim or appear at the
pretrial conference. At the pretrial conference, Pang

     1
            The Honorable Maura M. Okamoto presided.
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

represented that Smith had moved out. The district court deemed
no writ of possession was necessary and told Pang to file a non-
hearing motion for damages.
          On January 29, 2018, Smith filed a motion to set aside
his default. A hearing was set for February 12, 2018. Smith did
not appear for the hearing. The district court denied Smith's
motion.
          On February 13, 2018, Pang filed a "Non-hearing Motion
for Default Judgment." The motion was granted and a default
judgment was entered the same day.2 Pang moved for issuance of
garnishee summons to First Hawaiian Bank. First Hawaiian Bank's
disclosure was filed on March 8, 2018. A garnishee order was
issued on March 16, 2018. Pang received $9,605 from First
Hawaiian Bank on March 21, 2018.
          On March 7, 2018, Smith filed a motion to set aside the
default judgment and stay the garnishments. The motion was heard
on March 27, 2018, after First Hawaiian Bank had complied with
the garnishee order.3 The district court's minutes state:

          GENERAL DENIAL ENTERED BY THE COURT.

          BY ORDER OF THE COURT, DEFT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT
          JUDGMENT AND STAY GARNISHMENT THAT WAS DENIED EARLIER IN THE
          DAY AT 8:30 AM IN COURTROOM l0B IS SET ASIDE AND IS NOW
          GRANTED.

          THE PLTFF NEEDS TO RETURN THE $9,605.00 THAT WAS ALREADY
          GARNISHED, BACK TO THE DEFT.

          DEFT GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM AND MUST DO SO BY
          4/16/18.

          Smith filed a counterclaim on March 29, 2018. A
pretrial conference was held on April 30, 2018. Trial was set
for May 17, 2018. Pang did not order a transcript of the trial
for the record on appeal. The district court's minutes state:

     2
          The Honorable Michael K. Tanigawa presided.
     3
          The Honorable Hilary Benson Gangnes presided.

                                    2
   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

            AFTER TRIAL, COURT FOUND IN FAVOR OF PLTFF FOR $3,500.49[4]
            FOR CASE-IN-CHIEF; AND COUNTERCLAIM IN FAVOR OF COUNTER-
            CLAIMANT PLTFF FOR $9,605.00.

            THUS, [counterclaim] DEFT PANG OWES [counterclaimant] PLTFF
            SMITH THE PRINCIPAL OF $6,056.00 PLUS $65 FILING FEE.

          The Judgment re: Counterclaim, for $6,121 in favor of
Smith and against Pang, was entered on May 23, 2018. Pang filed
a motion for reconsideration or new trial. The district court
stamped "DENIED" and filed the motion on May 31, 2018. Pang
submitted a second motion for reconsideration or new trial on
June 1, 2018. The district court stamped "DENIED" and filed the
motion on June 5, 2018. Pang filed a notice of appeal on
June 15, 2018.5
          Pang argues that the district court erred by denying
his motions for reconsideration. We review a trial court's
ruling on a motion for reconsideration under the abuse of
discretion standard. Gailliard v. Rawsthorne, 150 Hawai#i 169,
176, 498 P.3d 700, 707 (2021). A motion for reconsideration
allows a party to present new evidence that could not have been
presented during trial; it is not a device to present evidence
that could have been offered at the trial. Id. at 180, 498 P.3d
at 711. Pang's motions for reconsideration were based upon
evidence that existed and could have been offered, but was not,
at the time of trial. We conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion by denying Pang's motions for
reconsideration.
          Pang argues that the district court "completely ignored
the most crucial document in this case, namely [Smith's]
Notarized Promissory [note], signed on September 23, 2017." A
copy of the promissory note was attached to each of Pang's
motions for reconsideration. The record does not show that Pang
offered the promissory note as evidence during the May 17, 2018

      4
            This appears to have been a typographical error; the amount should
have been $3,549 because 9,605 - 6,056 = 3,549.
      5
            Smith has not appeared in this appeal or filed an answering brief.

                                      3
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

trial. If he did, the record does not show whether the district
court admitted or excluded the evidence. Absent a transcript of
the trial (which Pang did not order for this appeal), we cannot
conclude that the district court clearly erred in its review of
the evidence.
          Pang argues that he first discovered Smith's trial
Exhibit A on September 7, 2018, three months after the trial.
Pang "believes this evidence is what tipped the scale of justice
to favor [Smith]." The record shows that Smith's Exhibit A was
received by the district court clerk on May 17, 2018 (the date of
the trial). The district court minutes state that Smith's
Exhibit A was admitted into evidence without objection. The
record does not show error by the district court.
          For the foregoing reasons, Pang has not established
reversible error by the district court. The Judgment re:
Counterclaim entered by the district court on May 23, 2018, is
affirmed.
          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 22, 2023.

On the brief(s):
                                      /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Robert C. Pang,                       Presiding Judge
Self-represented
Plaintiff-Appellant.                  /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
                                      Associate Judge

                                      /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
                                      Associate Judge

                                  4