NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 21-OCT-2024 07:51 AM Dkt. 256 SO
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (Consolidated with Nos. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
RONDA BESELT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALDORF=ASTORIA MANAGEMENT LLC, a foreign limited liability company; DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5; ROE CORPORATIONS 1-5; ROE NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS 1-5; AND ROE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-5, Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CC161000597(2))
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant Ronda Beselt (Beselt) appeals from
the November 15, 2021 Final Judgment (Judgment) entered by the
Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (Circuit Court)1 in favor of
Defendant-Appellee Waldorf=Astoria Management LLC, a foreign
limited liability company (Waldorf). Beselt also challenges the
Circuit Court's March 14, 2019 Order Granting in Part and Denying
in Part [Waldorf's] Motion to Compel Discovery, Filed on January
1 The Honorable Peter T. Cahill presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
14, 2019 (March 14, 2019 Discovery Order), June 24, 2019 Order
Denying [Beselt's] Motion for Reconsideration of the [March 14,
2019 Discovery Order] (Order Denying Reconsideration re
Discovery), and August 12, 2019 Order Granting Michael Jay Green
and Peter C. Hsieh's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for [Beselt],
Filed on June 14, 2019, (Order Granting Motion to Withdraw).2
Beselt raises seven points of error on appeal,
contending that the Circuit Court: (1) abused its discretion
when it determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction and
personal jurisdiction over her because she was mentally incapable
of entering into a settlement agreement with Waldorf (Settlement
Agreement); (2) abused its discretion when it prematurely cut off
all discovery six months prior to the discovery deadline as a
sanction for Beselt's noncompliance; (3) erred in refusing to set
aside the Settlement Agreement because the Circuit Court did not
ascertain whether Beselt had mental capacity to settle the case;
(4) abused its discretion in permitting Beselt to enter into the
Settlement Agreement where there was undue influence on her to
enter the agreement; (5) abused its discretion in allowing
counsel to withdraw during settlement negotiations; (6) abused
its discretion in entering the March 14, 2019 Discovery Order and
the June 24, 2019 Order Denying Reconsideration re Discovery; and
2 Beselt also identifies, but makes no argument concerning, the Circuit Court's August 10, 2021 Order Granting Defendant [Waldorf's] Motion to Deposit Settlement Funds, September 1, 2021 Order of Dismissal with Prejudice of All Claims and All Parties, and the July 23, 2021 Order Denying [Beselt's] Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying [Beselt's] Motion to Stay the Proceeding and Set Aside Settlement Agreement, Filed June 19, 2021.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(7) erred in dismissing her claims because Waldorf's actions in
discovery were fraudulent and misled the court.
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 by the parties, we
resolve Beselt's points of error as follows:
(1) Beselt argues, vaguely and confusingly, that the
Circuit Court lacked both subject matter jurisdiction over the
proceedings to put a settlement on the record and personal jurisdiction over Beselt because she lacked mental capacity at
the time.
"[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction is fundamental to a
court's power to act on the merits of a case from the outset of
the action; it may be challenged at any time, but jurisdiction
does not vacillate during the course of a case depending on the
particulars of the matter as it develops." Schwartz v. State,
136 Hawai#i 258, 263, 361 P.3d 1161, 1166 (2015).
"[J]urisdiction is not a light bulb which can be turned off or on
during the course of the trial." Id. at 262, 361 P.3d at 1165
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Beselt makes no
cogent argument and cites to no authority that would oust the
Circuit Court of its jurisdiction with respect to the Settlement
Agreement.
Regarding personal jurisdiction, Beselt argues that the
Circuit Court should have ensured that a pro se litigant, such as
Beselt, was competent at the time she entered into the agreement
with Waldorf, and that "the record" demonstrates that Beselt did
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
not possess the cognitive or volitional capacity to contract at
the time she entered in the Settlement Agreement.3 That said,
the evidence that Beselt contends demonstrates her lack of
capacity to enter into the Settlement Agreement is not in the
record on appeal; it refers to two post-appeal unsworn medical
reports that were not brought to the Circuit Court's attention.
Beselt acknowledges that this court has ruled that these reports
cannot be introduced in her opening brief. Beselt makes no
cogent argument and cites no applicable authority supporting her contention that the Circuit Court lacked personal jurisdiction
over her.
We conclude that this point of error is without merit.
(2) Beselt argues that the Circuit Court abused its
discretion when it "cut off all discovery" six months prior to
the discovery cut-off. Upon review of the record, we conclude
that there was no early discovery cut-off per se. Rather, due to
extensive delays and Beselt's interference with the discovery
process – including issues related to the providing of
authorizations to release medical and employment records, and
heavy redaction of records after the Circuit Court ordered (many
months earlier) that Beselt had 10 days to execute releases and
"there will be no redactions" – in the March 14, 2019 Discovery
Order, the Circuit Court ordered that Beselt would not be
permitted to produce additional documents, testimony by lay and
3 We note that, while Beselt was not formally represented by counsel at the time the Settlement Agreement was put on the record before the Circuit Court (because prior counsel withdrew), it appears that she engaged with a Honolulu attorney to review the settlement documents and provide counsel to her.
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
expert witnesses would be limited to information contained in the
records Beselt previously produced, and Beselt was barred from
recovery for damages or lost earnings or earnings capacity.
These sanctions were tailored to address the nature of the
discovery interfered with. Upon review of the record before the
Circuit Court, particularly with respect to the delays, failures
and active interference with the discovery process, we conclude
that the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in entering
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 21-OCT-2024 07:51 AM Dkt. 256 SO
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (Consolidated with Nos. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
RONDA BESELT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALDORF=ASTORIA MANAGEMENT LLC, a foreign limited liability company; DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5; ROE CORPORATIONS 1-5; ROE NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS 1-5; AND ROE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-5, Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CC161000597(2))
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant Ronda Beselt (Beselt) appeals from
the November 15, 2021 Final Judgment (Judgment) entered by the
Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (Circuit Court)1 in favor of
Defendant-Appellee Waldorf=Astoria Management LLC, a foreign
limited liability company (Waldorf). Beselt also challenges the
Circuit Court's March 14, 2019 Order Granting in Part and Denying
in Part [Waldorf's] Motion to Compel Discovery, Filed on January
1 The Honorable Peter T. Cahill presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
14, 2019 (March 14, 2019 Discovery Order), June 24, 2019 Order
Denying [Beselt's] Motion for Reconsideration of the [March 14,
2019 Discovery Order] (Order Denying Reconsideration re
Discovery), and August 12, 2019 Order Granting Michael Jay Green
and Peter C. Hsieh's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for [Beselt],
Filed on June 14, 2019, (Order Granting Motion to Withdraw).2
Beselt raises seven points of error on appeal,
contending that the Circuit Court: (1) abused its discretion
when it determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction and
personal jurisdiction over her because she was mentally incapable
of entering into a settlement agreement with Waldorf (Settlement
Agreement); (2) abused its discretion when it prematurely cut off
all discovery six months prior to the discovery deadline as a
sanction for Beselt's noncompliance; (3) erred in refusing to set
aside the Settlement Agreement because the Circuit Court did not
ascertain whether Beselt had mental capacity to settle the case;
(4) abused its discretion in permitting Beselt to enter into the
Settlement Agreement where there was undue influence on her to
enter the agreement; (5) abused its discretion in allowing
counsel to withdraw during settlement negotiations; (6) abused
its discretion in entering the March 14, 2019 Discovery Order and
the June 24, 2019 Order Denying Reconsideration re Discovery; and
2 Beselt also identifies, but makes no argument concerning, the Circuit Court's August 10, 2021 Order Granting Defendant [Waldorf's] Motion to Deposit Settlement Funds, September 1, 2021 Order of Dismissal with Prejudice of All Claims and All Parties, and the July 23, 2021 Order Denying [Beselt's] Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying [Beselt's] Motion to Stay the Proceeding and Set Aside Settlement Agreement, Filed June 19, 2021.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(7) erred in dismissing her claims because Waldorf's actions in
discovery were fraudulent and misled the court.
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 by the parties, we
resolve Beselt's points of error as follows:
(1) Beselt argues, vaguely and confusingly, that the
Circuit Court lacked both subject matter jurisdiction over the
proceedings to put a settlement on the record and personal jurisdiction over Beselt because she lacked mental capacity at
the time.
"[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction is fundamental to a
court's power to act on the merits of a case from the outset of
the action; it may be challenged at any time, but jurisdiction
does not vacillate during the course of a case depending on the
particulars of the matter as it develops." Schwartz v. State,
136 Hawai#i 258, 263, 361 P.3d 1161, 1166 (2015).
"[J]urisdiction is not a light bulb which can be turned off or on
during the course of the trial." Id. at 262, 361 P.3d at 1165
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Beselt makes no
cogent argument and cites to no authority that would oust the
Circuit Court of its jurisdiction with respect to the Settlement
Agreement.
Regarding personal jurisdiction, Beselt argues that the
Circuit Court should have ensured that a pro se litigant, such as
Beselt, was competent at the time she entered into the agreement
with Waldorf, and that "the record" demonstrates that Beselt did
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
not possess the cognitive or volitional capacity to contract at
the time she entered in the Settlement Agreement.3 That said,
the evidence that Beselt contends demonstrates her lack of
capacity to enter into the Settlement Agreement is not in the
record on appeal; it refers to two post-appeal unsworn medical
reports that were not brought to the Circuit Court's attention.
Beselt acknowledges that this court has ruled that these reports
cannot be introduced in her opening brief. Beselt makes no
cogent argument and cites no applicable authority supporting her contention that the Circuit Court lacked personal jurisdiction
over her.
We conclude that this point of error is without merit.
(2) Beselt argues that the Circuit Court abused its
discretion when it "cut off all discovery" six months prior to
the discovery cut-off. Upon review of the record, we conclude
that there was no early discovery cut-off per se. Rather, due to
extensive delays and Beselt's interference with the discovery
process – including issues related to the providing of
authorizations to release medical and employment records, and
heavy redaction of records after the Circuit Court ordered (many
months earlier) that Beselt had 10 days to execute releases and
"there will be no redactions" – in the March 14, 2019 Discovery
Order, the Circuit Court ordered that Beselt would not be
permitted to produce additional documents, testimony by lay and
3 We note that, while Beselt was not formally represented by counsel at the time the Settlement Agreement was put on the record before the Circuit Court (because prior counsel withdrew), it appears that she engaged with a Honolulu attorney to review the settlement documents and provide counsel to her.
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
expert witnesses would be limited to information contained in the
records Beselt previously produced, and Beselt was barred from
recovery for damages or lost earnings or earnings capacity.
These sanctions were tailored to address the nature of the
discovery interfered with. Upon review of the record before the
Circuit Court, particularly with respect to the delays, failures
and active interference with the discovery process, we conclude
that the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in entering
the March 14, 2019 Discovery Order. (3) In her third point of error, Beselt again argues
that the Settlement Agreement between her and Waldorf should be
voided or set aside on the grounds that the Circuit Court did not
have jurisdiction because Beselt lacked mental capacity to enter
into an agreement. For the reasons set forth above, we conclude
this argument is without merit.
(4) Beselt contends that the Settlement Agreement
should be voided by this court because it was entered into based
on undue influence. Beselt does not point to where in the record
of the Circuit Court proceedings this argument was made and does
not challenge any particular order of the Circuit Court. We
conclude that this argument is waived. Hawai#i Rules of
Appellate Procedure (HRAP) 28(b)(4) & (7).
(5) Beselt argues that the Circuit Court abused its
discretion when it allowed Beselt's counsel to withdraw "on the
eve of final settlement negotiations," and insinuates that the
Circuit Court exhibited bias against her. Beselt did not seek to
recuse or disqualify the presiding Circuit Court judge and thus
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
her related contentions are waived.4 Beselt makes no cogent
arguments on appeal concerning counsel's stated reasons for their
motion to withdraw, and she does not point to where in the record
she brought the asserted issues to the Circuit Court's attention.
This court nevertheless has carefully reviewed both the
openly-filed and sealed records related to counsel's withdrawal
(which were sealed to protect Beselt's attorney-client
privilege). It is clear from the sealed portion of the
transcript of the July 19, 2019 hearing that the Circuit Court carefully assessed Beselt's opposition to the motion to withdraw
and her assertions of prejudice, and carefully weighed the
specific facts averred by counsel with the prejudice and
potential prejudice to Beselt. After weighing the declarations
and arguments of counsel and Beselt, the Circuit Court found that
the specific factual circumstances presented to the court
warranted approving the withdrawal of counsel, and the court
exercised its discretion accordingly. The court ordered counsel
to take specific, immediate steps to mitigate the prejudice to
Beselt. Upon review, we conclude that the Circuit Court did not
abuse its discretion in entering the Order Granting Motion to
Withdraw.
(6) Beselt further argues that the Circuit Court
abused its discretion in entering the March 14, 2019 Discovery
Order, and abused its discretion in entering the Order Denying
Reconsideration re Discovery. The gravamen of Beselt's argument
4 We note that we detect no support whatsoever in the record for this assertion.
6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
is that the discovery sanctions contained in the March 14, 2019
Discovery Order, specifically the remedies barring recovery for
lost wages or future earning loss, was an abuse of discretion
because those sanctions were not specifically requested in the
underlying motion to compel and exceeded the relief orally
ordered by the court. The latter argument is wholly without
merit as the March 14, 2019 Discovery Order accurately reflects
the substance of the Circuit Court's oral rulings, and the
written order was approved and entered by the Circuit Court. Beselt cites no authority for the proposition that language of a
court's written order must precisely match its oral statement of
its ruling, and we find none.
Regarding the formulation of the relief provided to
Waldorf, at the March 13, 2019 hearing on the motion to compel,
the Circuit Court noted, for example, the unprecedented number of
medical providers identified by Beselt for whom records either
had not been provided or had been incompletely provided (well
over 100), notwithstanding the court's prior directives. The
court expressed concern over the proportionality of the
outstanding discovery in light of the nature of the case. The
barring of lost wages and future earnings remedies was directly
tied to Beselt's blocking of the release of relevant employment
records. Nevertheless, the Circuit Court invited Beselt to
immediately address the critical discovery failures, and to file
a motion for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration was
filed, and some further records were produced, but as evidenced
by Waldorf's response to the motion for reconsideration,
7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
including the supporting declaration of counsel and exhibits,
significant production failures remained outstanding. Upon
review, we conclude that the Circuit Court did not abuse its
discretion in formulating the relief reflected in the March 14,
2019 Discovery Order, or in denying reconsideration, after
allowing Beselt a further opportunity to address the outstanding
issues.
(7) Beselt presents no argument in support of her
final point of error. Therefore, this argument is waived. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
For these reasons, the Circuit Court's November 15,
2021 Judgment is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 21, 2024.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge Barry L. Sooalo, for Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge Calvin E. Young, Stacy Y. Ma, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Deirdre Marie-Iha, Associate Judge Thomas J. Hughes, (Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel), for Defendant-Appellee.