NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 26-NOV-2025 07:47 AM Dkt. 160 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
NAPOLEON T. ANNAN-YARTEY, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICE, INC. USA; JUSTIN CASTRO, SECURITY GUARD; E. RODRIGUEZ, SECURITY GUARD; W. AGAPAY, SECURITY GUARD; ROJAS RODERICK, SUPERVISOR (All Sued Individually and Official Capacity), Defendants-Appellees
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CC181001463)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Napoleon T.
Annan-Yartey, Sr. (Annan-Yartey) appeals from the Circuit Court
of the First Circuit's 1 (circuit court) March 6, 2023 "Final
Judgment," entered in favor of Defendants-Appellees Securitas
Security Service Inc. USA (Securitas), and Securitas employees
1 The Honorable Jeffrey P. Crabtree (Judge Crabtree) presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Justin Castro, E. Rodriguez, 2 W. Agapay, and Rhoderick Rojas
(Individual Appellees), 3 and against Annan-Yartey, on all claims.
This appeal arises out of legal action initiated by
Annan-Yartey against Appellees. Annan-Yartey alleged that, in
July 2017, he suffered injuries from an interaction with the
Individual Appellees at the Daniel K. Inouye Honolulu
International Airport, where Securitas was contracted to provide
security services. Annan-Yartey asserted claims of false
imprisonment, conspiracy, assault, battery, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, negligent hiring and screening, negligent
training, negligent supervision, and violations of state and
federal constitutional rights.
Annan-Yartey's state and federal constitutional
claims, negligent hiring, negligent training, and negligent
supervision claims were disposed of prior to trial. The state
and federal constitutional claims were dismissed pursuant to
Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Summary
judgment was granted in favor of Appellees on the negligent
2 E. Rodriguez is also referred to as "Elijah Rodriguez" in the analysis of point of error 7.
3 Securitas and the Individual Appellees are collectively referred to as Appellees.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
hiring, negligent training, and negligent supervision claims.
During trial, but prior to jury deliberation, judgment as a
matter of law (JMOL) was entered on the conspiracy claim
pursuant to HRCP Rule 50.
Annan-Yartey's remaining claims then proceeded to the
jury, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellees.
The circuit court entered the Final Judgment. This appeal
followed.
Annan-Yartey raises nine arguments on appeal, 4
contending that the circuit court erred or abused its discretion
in: (1) "commit[ing] prejudicial error . . . when [Judge
Crabtree] refused to recuse himself for being tainted with bias,
[lack of] impartiality, conflict of interest and racism toward
[Annan-Yartey]"; (2) "when it granted final [JMOL] in favor of
[Appellees]"; (3) in entering judgment in favor of Appellees
because "the jury erred when it found that [Securitas] was not
vicariously liable of [sic] [Individual Appellees]"; (4) "in
denying [Annan-Yartey's] motion for discovery"; (5) "by
excluding [Annan-Yartey's] treating physicians' medical reports
and testifying as fact witness[es]"; (6) by giving the jury
4 Annan-Yartey's opening brief does not set forth points of error on appeal, and is in other ways noncompliant with Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b). To promote access to justice, we do not automatically foreclose self-represented litigants from appellate review for their failure to comply with the court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020).
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
"erroneous jury instructions"; (7) in "den[ying] [Annan-
Yartey's] motion to compel attendance of Elijah Rodriguez[] [at
a] deposition and [the] jury trial"; (8) in "violat[ing] [Annan-
Yartey's] constitutional rights" by "permit[ting] [Appellees'
attorney] to elicit highly prejudicial statement[s] and evidence
to perpetuate fraud on the court"; and (9) in "violat[ing]
[Annan-Yartey's] constitutional rights" by "permit[ting]
[Appellees' attorney] to elicit highly prejudicial statement[s]
by expanding the scope of Dr. Marvit[']s testimony about [Annan-
Yartey's] mental condition and the arrest of [Honolulu Police
Department]." (Capitalization altered.)
Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and
relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration
to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,
we resolve Annan-Yartey's contentions as discussed below, and
affirm the circuit court's Final Judgment.
(1) Annan-Yartey contends that Judge Crabtree erred by
"refus[ing] to recuse himself for being tainted with bias, [lack
of] impartiality, conflict of interest and racism towards
[Annan-Yartey]." "Decisions on recusal or disqualification
present perhaps the ultimate test of judicial discretion and
should thus lie undisturbed absent a showing of abuse of that
discretion." State v. Ross, 89 Hawaiʻi 371, 375, 974 P.2d 11, 15
(1998). 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Hawaiʻi courts reviewing questions of disqualification
and recusal apply a two-part analysis. First, with respect to
judicial disqualification, "courts determine whether the alleged
bias is covered by [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)] § 601-7,
which only pertains to cases of affinity or consanguinity,
financial interest, prior participation, and actual judicial
bias or prejudice." Kondaur Cap. Corp. v. Matsuyoshi,
150 Hawaiʻi 1, 10-11, 496 P.3d 479, 488-89 (App. 2021) (footnote
omitted) (quoting Ross, 89 Hawai‘i at 377, 974 P.2d at 17).
Second, with respect to judicial recusal, "if HRS
§ 601-7 does not apply, courts may then turn, if appropriate, to
the notions of due process . . . in conducting the broader
inquiry of whether circumstances . . . fairly give rise to an
appearance of impropriety and . . . reasonably cast suspicion on
[the judge's] impartiality." Id. at 11, 496 P.3d at 489
(cleaned up). "The test for appearance of impropriety is
whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a
perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial
responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is
impaired." Id. at 21, 496 P.3d at 499 (quoting Off. of
Disciplinary Couns. v. Au, 107 Hawaiʻi 327, 338, 113 P.3d 203,
214 (2005)).
Judge Crabtree filed two judicial disclosures on the
record. His first disclosure, dated January 11, 2019, informed 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the parties of his former professional affiliation with
Appellees' law firm, which was then known as Bronster Crabtree &
Hoshibata, and with attorney Margery S. Bronster, who was his
law partner from 1999 to 2007. Judge Crabtree represented that
he is "completely neutral and impartial" "[r]egarding the
parties to this case." The first disclosure gave the parties
until January 25, 2019 to request "further clarification or
information regarding any of the [] disclosures," and until
4 p.m. on February 4, 2019 to move for Judge Crabtree's
disqualification/recusal. Both Annan-Yartey and Appellees
responded that they had no objections to Judge Crabtree
presiding over the case.
Judge Crabtree's second disclosure, filed August 10,
2021, informed the parties that his former law clerk had
recently accepted employment at the Bronster Fujichaku Robbins
law firm during the pendency of the litigation, and that normal
conflict avoidance procedures would be observed. Judge Crabtree
represented that his second disclosure "[did] not change the
[circuit] court's previous view that it can in fact be
completely fair and impartial."
In September 2021, Annan-Yartey moved for Judge
Crabtree's recusal, to which Appellees objected. In October
2021, Judge Crabtree heard and denied Annan-Yartey's motion.
6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
We note the absence of record evidence supporting
Annan-Yartey's contentions that Judge Crabtree exhibited bias
towards him. "Bias cannot be premised on adverse rulings
alone." Arquette v. State, 128 Hawaiʻi 423, 448, 290 P.3d 493,
518 (2012) (citation omitted). Annan-Yartey's speculative
claims of bias or prejudice are insufficient to require
disqualification, absent specific facts to support those claims.
Id.
"[A] judge is duty-bound not to withdraw where the
circumstances do not fairly give rise to an appearance of
impropriety and do not reasonably cast suspicion on his [or her]
impartiality." Kondaur, 150 Hawaiʻi at 22, 496 P.3d at 500
(cleaned up). We conclude that Judge Crabtree did not abuse his
discretion by not disqualifying or recusing himself from this
case.
(2) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court
erred in entering JMOL. HRCP Rule 50(a)(1) authorizes a trial
court to grant JMOL, "[i]f during a trial by jury a party has
been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient
evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party
on that issue[.]" The record reflects that the circuit court's
JMOL was entered only as to Annan-Yartey's conspiracy claim.
The circuit court explained that, based on the testimony
7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
presented at trial, "there was just nothing the [circuit] court
could find that supported a conspiracy claim."
Annan-Yartey's opening brief fails to point to any
record evidence that supports his allegations of conspiracy.
Moreover, Annan-Yartey has not satisfied his duty to provide the
relevant trial transcripts that are necessary for this court's
review of this issue -- i.e., the testimony of Justin Castro,
Rhoderick Rojas, and W. Agapay. See Bettencourt v. Bettencourt,
80 Hawaiʻi 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 [they have] the responsibility of
providing an adequate transcript.") (citation omitted). We
therefore have no basis upon which to review the circuit court's
JMOL, which we leave undisturbed.
(3) Annan-Yartey appears to contend that the jury
erred in finding that Securitas was not vicariously liable for
the Individual Appellees' actions. The record reflects that the
jury did not make a finding as to Securitas' vicarious
liability. Annan-Yartey therefore fails to make a discernible
argument as to this point. "We will disregard a point of error
if the appellant fails to present discernible argument on the
alleged error." Bank of Haw. v. Shaw, 83 Hawaiʻi 50, 52, 924
P.2d 544, 546 (App. 1996) (citation omitted).
8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(4) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court erred
in denying his "motion for discovery." Annan-Yartey appears to
contend that the circuit court erred in denying the testimony of
his "treating physicians" who he alleges to have knowledge of
his medical condition.
In its June 6, 2022 "Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part [Annan-Yartey's] Motion to Present Testimony of
Physicians Who Treated Him for the Injuries that He Sustained on
July 4, 2019 After July 4, 2017, Filed April 8, 2022" (Physician
Testimony Order), the circuit court ruled,
The Motion is GRANTED with respect to:
1. Dr. Henry Cacanindin of the Kuakini Medical Center, who treated [Annan-Yartey] on July 4, 2017 may testify at the trial of this matter.
The Motion is DENIED with respect to:
1. Dr. Maria Ver, Dr. [Szeto-Wong], and Dr. Richard Inae may not testify at the trial of this matter[. 5]
5 In its earlier May 6, 2022 "Ruling," the circuit court denied Annan-Yartey's request to introduce Dr. Ver, Dr. Szeto-Wong, and Dr. Inae's testimony, explaining,
C. Here, the three doctors the instant motion is focused on did not treat [Annan-Yartey] at or soon after the alleged assault in 2017. They treated him one year later (2008, Dr. Ver, neck cysts), and three years later (2020, Dr. Inae, bowel obstruction and Dr. Szeto-Wong, heart ailment/Pacemaker).
D. Based on the current record, it is not readily apparent that these later-treated medical conditions are causally related to the alleged assault in 2017, such as if it were follow-up treatment for a broken bone suffered at the time of the alleged incident.
E. The instant motion does not provide any medical evidence regarding the three doctors mentioned above, other than the medical records for their treatment. None of these medical records states, infers, or even discusses (continued . . .) 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Annan-Yartey presents no argument, nor does he point
to any evidence in the record, that would support a causal
connection between Dr. Ver, Dr. Szeto-Wong, and Dr. Inae's
treatment and Annan-Yartey's alleged assault. We therefore
conclude that Annan-Yartey failed to demonstrate error, and we
affirm the circuit court's exclusion of Dr. Ver, Dr. Szeto-Wong,
and Dr. Inae's testimony from trial. See Haw. Ventures, LLC v.
Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawaiʻi 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007)
(appellants failed to demonstrate error where they "[did] not
point to anything in the record or provide any analysis that
5(. . . continued) whether any symptom, diagnosis, or prognosis is related to the alleged assault in 2017.
F. [Annan-Yartey's] motion asks that the three above- named treating doctors be allowed to testify about their treatment of the later conditions discussed above. But such testimony is only relevant to [Annan-Yartey's] claims if the later conditions are [causally] related to the 2017 alleged assault. So the three doctors' testimony is only relevant if they give causation opinions. This was already barred by the court's prior summary judgment ruling, because no admissible medical opinion establishing causation was ever submitted.
G. [Annan-Yartey] frames his request as one for "clarification" rather than reconsideration. The court respectfully disagrees. The prior [motion for summary judgment] established that medical causation testimony is required under Hawaii law, that it is [Annan-Yartey's] burden to establish causation, that discovery had closed, that the required evidence was not provided in opposition to the motion, and therefore such causation testimony was precluded. It is true that [Annan-Yartey] was pro se at the time, but that in and of itself is not grounds to unwind a prior dispositive order.
(Emphasis in original.)
10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
would guide th[e] court in determining the validity of their
contention.").
(5) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court erred
by ruling "that [Annan-Yartey's] medical records were not
admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule." Annan-
Yartey does not specify which medical records were excluded,
where in the record they were excluded, or the basis for the
circuit court's alleged exclusion of the records. The record
reflects that the partial medical records of Annan-Yartey's
emergency medical treatment at the airport and in transit were
admitted into evidence. Annan-Yartey's Kuakini Health System
emergency medical records were also admitted into evidence. We
therefore decline to address this contention for lack of a
discernible argument.
(6) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court erred
in its instructions to the jury. We review jury instructions to
determine whether, considered as a whole, the instructions were
"prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or
misleading." Medeiros v. Choy, 142 Hawaiʻi 233, 239, 418 P.3d
574, 580 (2018) (quoting Nelson v. Univ. of Haw., 97 Hawaiʻi 376,
386, 38 P.3d 95, 105 (2001)).
Annan-Yartey makes three arguments related to jury
instructions. In light of sections (2) and (3), supra, we
decline to address the circuit court's instruction on 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
conspiracy, and its "refus[al]" to give an instruction on
vicarious liability. With regard to the remaining instruction,
Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court "erred in
instructing the jury regarding the Civil Assault claim by giving
[Appellees'] requested instruction, which was a criminal assault
instruction[, as] this instruction confused the jury."
The record reflects that the circuit court instructed
the jury as to both civil assault and criminal assault. 6 The
6 The circuit court's instruction on "assault" and "assault against a law enforcement officer" was given in connection with Appellees' "probable cause to arrest" defense, as follows:
The existence of probable cause to arrest is an affirmative defense to an action for false imprisonment. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the officer, or of which he had reasonably trustworthy information, would warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that the person arrested has committed or is committing an offense.
A person commits the offense of assault if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person.
A person commits the offen[se] of assault against a law enforcement officer in the first degree if the person intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the performance of duty.
A person commits the offen[se] of assault against a law enforcement officer in the second degree if the person recklessly causes bodily injury to a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the performance of duty.
If [Annan-Yartey] committed assault, assault against a law enforcement officer in the first degree, or assault against a law enforcement officer in the second degree against [Justin] Castro, then [Annan-Yartey] committed a criminal offense under the laws of the State of Hawaiʻi.
If [Annan-Yartey] committed a criminal offense under the laws of the State of Hawaiʻi in any [Individual Appellees'] (continued . . .) 12 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
circuit court gave the following instruction on the common law
tort of assault,
A person commits the common law tort of assault if he acts with intent to cause another a nonconsensual harmful or offensive contact or apprehension thereof, and the other person apprehends imminent contact. The actor must intend to cause a harmful or offensive contact, or imminent apprehension thereof.
Plaintiff must prove each element of assault by a preponderance of the evidence. Failure to prove any single element, is a failure to prove the civil assault claim.
Annan-Yartey does not acknowledge the above
instruction on civil assault, and contends only that the circuit
court's "assault instruction" was "verbose, jumbled, and
confusing."
On this record, we conclude that the circuit court's
jury instructions on civil and criminal assault were not
misleading." Medeiros, 142 Hawaiʻi at 239, 418 P.3d at 580
(citation omitted).
(7) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court erred
in failing to compel Defendant-Appellee Elijah Rodriguez's
(Rodriguez) attendance at trial and, separately, at a pre-trial
deposition. We review the circuit court's ruling on a motion to
compel discovery for abuse of discretion. Bank of N.Y. Mellon
6(. . .continued) presence, then [Individual Appellees] had probable cause to place [Annan-Yartey] under arrest. 13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
v. Lemay, 137 Hawaiʻi 30, 33, 364 P.3d 928, 931 (2015) (citation
omitted).
Annan-Yartey first contends that the circuit court
failed to compel Rodriguez's attendance at trial. The record
reflects that Annan-Yartey did not move to compel Rodriguez's
attendance at trial. On this record, we conclude that Annan-
Yartey's contention lacks merit.
Annan-Yartey next contends that the circuit court
failed to compel Rodriguez's attendance at a pre-trial
deposition. The record reflects that Annan-Yartey subpoenaed
Rodriguez to appear at a deposition on November 12, 2019.
Appellees' counsel met and conferred with Annan-Yartey to
discuss rescheduling the deposition to a date/time that would
work for both sides. Appellees' counsel's declaration states
that Annan-Yartey "told us [at the meet and confer] that he
would insist on the depositions going forward on November 12 and
13, 2019." "However, after the meet and confer, [Annan-Yartey]
stated that he would reset the deposition dates and time in
December to allow sufficient time to contact and prepare the
deponents." The record reflects further communication between
Appellees' counsel and Annan-Yartey regarding the deposition
scheduling.
In December 2019, Annan-Yartey moved the circuit court
to compel Rodriguez to appear at a deposition. The circuit 14 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
court noted, at the January 2020 hearing, that it was inclined
to deny the motion without prejudice. The circuit court did
not, however, enter a written order on the motion, and Annan-
Yartey subpoenaed Rodriguez to a video deposition scheduled for
February 4, 2020. Prior to the scheduled deposition, the
circuit court issued a minute order, noting further difficulties
regarding the parties' scheduling of depositions. The circuit
court "encourage[d] both sides to accomplish whatever can be
accomplished on Feb. 3 and 4, and then [the circuit court would]
set another status hearing if [needed] to smooth out any ongoing
problems."
It appears that the February 4, 2019, deposition did
not proceed as scheduled, Rodriguez was not deposed, and Annan-
Yartey did not make further attempts to depose Rodriguez. In
January 2021, two months after the discovery cut-off date,
Annan-Yartey filed "[Annan-Yartey's] Motion to Re-Open Discovery
for Limited Written Discovery," in which he sought to "conduct
expedited limited written discovery of Elijah Rodrigo [sic] and
[Annan-Yartey's] 'disclosed treating doctors.'" The circuit
court denied Annan-Yartey's request to re-open discovery.
On this record, we conclude that the circuit court did
not abuse its discretion by not compelling Rodriguez's
deposition testimony.
15 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(8) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court
violated his constitutional rights by "permitt[ing] [Appellees'
counsel] to elicit highly prejudicial statement[s] and evidence
to perpetuate Fraud on the Court." Annan-Yartey specifically
maintains that Appellees' counsel "was permitted by the
[circuit] court to elicit from the [HRS §] 261-17 . . .
inflammatory evidence that, Securitas Security guards [] were
airport police and not Security Guards." Annan-Yartey fails to
present any discernible argument, and we therefore decline to
address this contention.
(9) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court
violated his constitutional rights by "permitt[ing] [Appellees'
counsel] to elicit highly prejudicial statement[s] by expanding
the scope of Dr. Marvit[']s testimony about [Annan-Yartey's]
mental condition and the arrest of [Honolulu Police
Department]." It appears that Annan-Yartey is objecting here to
Appellees' introduction of Annan-Yartey's arrest record and the
characterization of Annan-Yartey as "delusional."
The transcript of Dr. Marvit's testimony is not in the
record. We therefore lack a sufficient record on which to
review contentions of error related to the introduction of Dr.
Marvit's testimony.
The transcript of Appellees' counsel's closing
statement is in the record and, relevant here, it reflects that 16 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Annan-Yartey did not make any objections. Annan-Yartey's
argument on appeal is therefore waived. See Ass'n of Apartment
Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., 100 Hawaiʻi 97, 107,
58 P.3d 608, 618 (2002) ("Legal issues not raised in the trial
court are ordinarily deemed waived on appeal.") (citations
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Final
Judgment. 7
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, November 26, 2025.
On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge Napoleon T. Annan-Yartey, Sr. Self-represented /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Plaintiff-Appellant. Associate Judge
Kenneth S. Robbins, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry for Defendants-Appellees. Associate Judge
7 Pursuant to HRAP Rule 34(c), Annan-Yartey's November 10, 2025 Motion for Retention of Oral Argument is denied. 17