Court Opinion

ID: 9379638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 21:02:50.113507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:00.956181
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                            Electronically Filed
                                            Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                            CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                            15-MAR-2023
                                            08:16 AM
                                            Dkt. 22 OGMD
                         NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                       OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

        LONNELL REGINALD WIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
      HICKAM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; MARK (DOE); ELISA (DOE),
                       Defendants-Appellees

       APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                   (CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

              ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
                       MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
     (By:     Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Chan, JJ.)
            Upon consideration of self-represented Plaintiff-
Appellant Lonnell Reginald Wideman's (Wideman) February 27, 2023
Motion to Dismiss Appeal Without Prejudice (Motion to Dismiss),
the papers in support, the record, and there being no opposition,
it appears that Wideman moves under Hawai i Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) Rule 42(b): (1) to dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction, as the appeal is from a February 2, 2023 minute
order, and not from a final, appealable written order or
judgment; and (2) to fix terms in the dismissal order allowing
him to refile the underlying claims with the Hawaii Civil Rights
Commission.
            We agree and conclude that the court lacks appellate
jurisdiction because "a minute order is not an appealable order."
Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai i 319, 321
n.3, 966 P.2d 631, 633 n.3 (1998); see also Hawaii Revised
Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016); Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure
Rules 54(b), 58; Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright,
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

76 Hawai i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994).     As the court
lacks appellate jurisdiction, it is not in a position to dismiss
the appeal upon the terms Wideman requests.     Pele Def. Fund v.
Puna Geothermal Venture, 77 Hawai i 64, 69 n.10, 881 P.2d 1210,
1215 n.10 (1994).
          Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to
Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
          1.   The appeal is dismissed under HRAP Rule 42(b).
          2.   All other relief requested is denied.
          DATED:    Honolulu, Hawai i, March 15, 2023.

                                      /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
                                      Presiding Judge

                                      /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
                                      Associate Judge

                                      /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan
                                      Associate Judge

                                  2