Court Opinion

ID: 9404662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 19:04:19.997769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.073291
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                  Electronically Filed
                                                  Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                  CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                  23-JUN-2023
                                                  07:55 AM
                                                  Dkt. 24 SO

                              NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

                         MEIHUA LI, Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                       v.
                     GREGORY WAKAYAMA, Defendant-Appellant

          APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                     NORTH AND SOUTH KONA DIVISION
                      (CASE NO. 3DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)

                          SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
          (By:    Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Nakasone, JJ.)

                 Defendant-Appellant Greg Wakayama (Wakayama), self-
represented, appeals from the (1) Judgment for Possession
(Judgment) and (2) the Writ of Possession (Writ),           1   both filed
and entered on May 19, 2022 by the District Court of the Third
Circuit, North and South Kona Division. 2

      1     Wakayama's Notice of Appeal does not "designate the judgment,
order, or part thereof and the court or agency appealed from[,]" nor is a
copy of the judgment or order attached as an exhibit, as required by Hawai‘i
Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 3(c)(2). Wakayama's Opening Brief
appears to reference the Judgment for Possession and the Writ of Possession
as the orders that Wakayama appeals from, and we construe the appeal as
encompassing the same.
      2     The Honorable Joseph P. Florendo, Jr. signed and entered the
Judgment and Writ, and the May 18, 2022 Order Denying Ex Parte Motion to Stay
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʿI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           On appeal, Wakayama raises various contentions of
error that are difficult to discern.        Wakayama's Opening Brief
does not comply with HRAP Rule 28.        There are no points of error
and no record references.
           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).          To promote
access to justice, we interpret pleadings prepared by self-
represented litigants liberally, and attempt to afford them
appellate review even though they fail to comply with court
rules.   See Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai‘i 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815,
827-28 (2020).    Accordingly, we address Wakayama's contentions
to the extent we can discern them.
           Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced, we affirm.
           On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff-Appellee Meihua Li (Li)
filed a Complaint for Summary Possession in the District Court
against Wakayama.     The Complaint alleged that Li was owner of a
residence located at 75-198 Ala Onaona Street, Kailua-Kona,
Hawai‘i (Property); that Wakayama's lease ended on the Property;
and that Wakayama had not paid rent or vacated the premises
despite multiple notices to vacate the Property.
           On May 9, 2022, Wakayama filed a counterclaim against
Li.

Execution of Wright of Possession. The Honorable Kimberly B. Taniyama
presided over the April 8 and May 11, 2022 trial.

                                     2
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʿI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

            Trial was held on April 8 and May 11, 2022. 3         The court
minutes of May 11, 2022, indicate that the District Court ruled
in favor of Li.
            On May 17, 2022, Wakayama timely appealed.          Later that
day, Wakayama filed an Ex Parte Motion to Stay Execution of Writ
of Possession (Ex Parte Motion to Stay).
            On May 18, 2022, the District Court denied the Ex
Parte Motion to Stay.
            On May 19, 2022, the District Court filed its Judgment
and Writ.
            From what we can discern, Wakayama appears to contend
that the Judgment and Writ are invalid because the Judgment and
Writ were signed by Judge Florendo, and not by Judge Taniyama,
who presided over the trial; that the judges were "bias [sic]
[and] prejudice [sic]" against Wakayama; that Li violated a
"Federal Trade Commission trade regulation rule"; that Li had
unclean hands; that the Complaint was filed in "bad faith" to
"harass" Wakayama and in a lower court "without proper
jurisdiction"; that Li failed to bring proper parties into this
case; that Li's filings were "intentional for non disclosure
[sic] of amount"; that Li failed to seek back rent in the
Complaint; that Li lacked standing because Li admitted the
Property was sold; and that Wakayama had filed a lien and "Lis
Pendens" against the Property.        Wakayama, however, does not
present discernible legal authority, record references to

      3     Wakayama did not request transcripts of the April 8 and May 11,
2022 trial 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 . . . ."); Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai‘i 225, 230, 909
P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("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." (alteration in original)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

                                      3
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʿI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

support asserted facts, or argument beyond conclusory assertions
to support these contentions.    See Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka,
Inc., 114 Hawai‘i 438, 478, 164 P.3d 696, 736 (2007) (stating

that "an appellate court is not obliged to address matters for
which the appellant has failed to present discernible
arguments."); HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) (requiring citations to legal
authorities to support contentions).      We conclude his
contentions are waived and thus need not address them.        See HRAP
Rule 28(b)(7).   ("Points not argued may be deemed waived.").
          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the (1) Judgment
for Possession and (2) the Writ of Possession, both filed and
entered on May 19, 2022 by the District Court of the Third
Circuit, North and South Kona Division.
          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 23, 2023.
On the briefs:
                                      /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Gregory Wakayama,
                                      Chief Judge
Self-Represented Defendant-
Appellant.
                                      /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
                                      Associate Judge
Li Li,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
                                      /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
                                      Associate Judge

                                  4