Court Opinion

ID: 9852741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:35:52.837381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:33.651136
License: Public Domain

*418BURNS, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result.
I agree that the Respondents did not waive their jurisdictional objection or consent to the circuit court’s jurisdiction.
I disagree that a proceeding under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-91(a) (1993) is governed by the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure.
HRS § 386-91 (1993) states in relevant part as follows:
Enforcement of decisions awarding compensation; judgment rendered thereon, (a) Any party in interest or the director may file in the circuit court in the jurisdiction in which the injury occurred, a certified copy of:
(1)A decision of the director ... awarding compensation ..., including attorneys fees, from which no appeal has been taken within the time allowed therefor;
[[Image here]]
(3) A decision of the appellate board ... awarding compensation ..., including attorneys fees, from which no appeal has been taken within the time allowed therefor; or
(4) A decision of the appellate board ... awarding compensation ..., including attorneys fees, from which an appeal has been taken but as to which no order has been made by the appellate board or the court that the appeal therefrom shall operate as a superse-deas or stay.
The court shall render a judgment in accordance with the decision and notify the parties thereof. The judgment shall have the same effect, and all proceedings in relation thereto shall thereafter be the same, as though the judgment had been rendered in an action duly heard and determined by the court, except that there shall be no appeal therefrom.
Among the states, this statute is the most common type of statute. 3 Mod Work Comp § 312:9 (1993).
The Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai<i (RCCH) state ⅛ relevant part as follows:
Rule 3 Form of pleadings and mo. tions
[[Image here]]
(c) Form of first page. ....
[[Image here]]
(5)In the space to the right of the title of the cause, there shall be listed the class and case number followed in civil cases by the category best describing the claims asserted in the case....
The category best describing the claims asserted in a civil case shall be selected from the following:
[[Image here]]
Special Proceeding
[[Image here]]
Rule 31. Proceedings not governed by [Hawaii] rules of civil procedure.
(a) Procedure. Except as provided by statute or by other rules of court, where a civil proceeding is not governed by the [Hawaii] Rules of Civil Procedure:
(1) The proceeding shall be commenced by petition;
(2) The petition shall be verified by the oath of the petitioner, or someone on his behalf, deposing to the best of his knowledge and belief;
(3) Service of the petition and order to show cause and any other process or order shall be made as provided by the [Hawaii] Rules of Civil Procedure;
(4) A return to the petition shall be made within the time ordered by the court, and if it presents an issue of fact shall be supported by oath;
(5) The court may designate and order that any one or more of the [Hawaii] Rules of Civil Procedure shall be applicable in such case.
In my view, RCCH Rule 31 applies and Petitioner failed to comply with it. There*419fore, everything that was done commencing December 24, 1992, should be vacated and Petitioner should be permitted to start all over again in compliance with RCCH Rule 31.