Court Opinion

ID: 9398271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 18:05:18.109205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.875328
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                   Electronically Filed
                                                   Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                   CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                   26-MAY-2023
                                                   07:53 AM
                                                   Dkt. 27 SO

                          NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                        OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

            WANDA LEE LEOPOLDINO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                 v.
                JOHN CASEY WONG, Defendant-Appellee

         APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                    (CASE NO. FC-DA 21-1-0517)

                     SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
  (By:   Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)

          Plaintiff-Appellant Wanda Lee Leopoldino (Leopoldino),
self-represented, appeals from: (1) the February 15, 2022 "Order
Dissolving Temporary Restraining Order [(TRO)] for Protection"
(Order Dissolving TRO), and (2) the March 1, 2022 "Order Denying
Petitioner [sic] Motion for Reconsideration (Motion for
Reconsideration) of This Order Dissolving Petitioner's Temporary
Restarting [sic] Order" (Order Denying Reconsideration), both
filed and entered by the Family Court of the Third Circuit.1
          Leopoldino raises the following points of error on
appeal: (1) the Family Court erred in denying Leopoldino's

     1     The Honorable Jeffrey W. Ng presided.
   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"motion for a TRO/Restraining Order"; and (2) the Family Court
erred in "not ensuring [Leopoldino]'s [sic] was protected from
someone who possess [sic] a threat to her life."2
            Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve
Leopoldino's points of error as follows, and affirm.
            On September 9, 2021, Leopoldino filed a Petition for
an Order for Protection (Petition) against Defendant-Appellee
John Casey Wong (Wong).       The Family Court issued the TRO,
finding "probable cause to believe that . . . [a] past act or
acts of abuse have occurred, or that threats of abuse make it
probable that acts of abuse may be imminent."
            The Family Court conducted a hearing on December 7,
2021 to allow Wong to respond to the allegations in the TRO.
Wong denied the allegations, and the Family Court set the matter
for an evidentiary hearing.
            The Family Court held the evidentiary hearing on
February 15, 2022.3     Following the hearing, the Family Court

      2     Leopoldino's points do not cite to "where in the record the
alleged error[s] occurred" and "where in the record the alleged error was
objected to or the manner in which the alleged error was brought to the
attention of the court" as required by Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure
(HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4)(ii) and (iii). The Opening Brief also contains no
record references as required by HRAP Rule 28(b)(3), (4), and (7). Despite
non-compliance with the HRAP, we endeavor to afford "litigants the
opportunity to have their cases heard on the merits, where possible." Marvin
v. Pflueger, 127 Hawai‘i 490, 496, 280 P.3d 88, 94 (2012) (cleaned up). See
Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai‘i 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020) (stating
that, to promote access to justice, pleadings prepared by self-represented
litigants should be interpreted liberally, and self-represented litigants
should not be automatically foreclosed from appellate review for failure to
comply with court rules).
      3     Leopoldino did not request transcripts of the February 15, 2022
evidentiary hearing as required by HRAP Rule 10. See HRAP Rule 10(a)(1)(A)
(requiring a transcript request "[w]hen an appellant desires to raise any
point on appeal that requires consideration of the oral proceedings before
the court appealed from . . . .").

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

issued an Order Dissolving TRO stating that the TRO was
dissolved due to "insufficient evidence."
            On February 22, 2022, Leopoldino submitted her Motion
for Reconsideration to the Family Court, which was denied,
without a hearing, on March 1, 2022.4
            This timely appeal followed.
            Leopoldino argues that her "Motion for TRO/Restraining
Order" was "improperly denied, wherein the facts supported the
issuing of a restraining order."          Leopoldino makes a general
assertion that it was "unconstitutional" for the Family Court to
deny her motion, "wherein her life is in danger[,]" but does not
cite to any authority in support, or present any argument.             This
argument is waived.      See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) and (7); Ito v.
Investors Equity Life Holding Co., 135 Hawai‘i 49, 74, 346 P.3d
118, 143 (2015) ("Where an appellant makes general assertions of
a due process violation, without further elaboration or citation
to authority, the court cannot reach a reasoned conclusion, and
the due process argument is deemed waived.") (citing Cnty. of
Hawai‘i v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. P'ship, 119 Hawai‘i 352, 373,
198 P.3d 615, 636 (2008)).
            Leopoldino also argues that the Family Court erred in
not considering facts that she presented to support the issuance
of the TRO.    Leopoldino did not provide the transcript of the
February 15, 2022 evidentiary hearing to support her argument
that the Family Court did not consider certain evidence
presented at the hearing.       "The burden is upon appellant in an
appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and
he [or she] has the responsibility of providing an adequate
transcript."    Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai‘i 225, 230,

      4     Leopoldino does not present any argument in her brief on the
Order Denying Reconsideration.

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

909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) (alteration in original) (quoting Union
Bldg. Materials Corp. v. The Kakaako Corp., 5 Haw. App. 146,
151, 682 P.2d 82, 87 (1984)).    An appellate court will not
presume error from a silent record.      In re Camacho, 140 Hawai‘i
404, 413, 400 P.3d 605, 614 (App. 2017) (citing State v. Hoang,
93 Hawai‘i 333, 336, 3 P.3d 499, 502 (2000)).      Without a

transcript, there is no basis upon which to review the alleged
error by the Family Court.    See Bettencourt, 80 Hawai‘i at 230,

909 P.2d at 558.
          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the (1) February
15, 2022 "Order Dissolving Temporary Restraining Order for
Protection" and (2) the March 1, 2022 "Order Denying Petitioner
[sic] Motion for Reconsideration of This Order Dissolving
Petitioner's Temporary Restarting [sic] Order," filed and
entered by the Family Court of the Third Circuit.
          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 26, 2023.
On the briefs:
                                      /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Wanda Lee Leopoldino,
                                      Presiding Judge
Plaintiff-Appellant
Self-represented.
                                      /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
                                      Associate Judge
Sara B. Vargas,
for Defendant-Appellee.
                                      /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
                                      Associate Judge

                                  4