Compu-Link Corporation v. Fernandes

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 16, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-26-0000206
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 16-JUN-2026 08:12 AM Dkt. 36 ODSLJ NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

COMPU-LINK CORPORATION dba CELINK, Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. ELEANOR P. FERNANDES, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant, and SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-COUNTY OF HAWAI#I (EAST HAWAII) REAL PROPERTY TAX DIVISION, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE ENTITIES 1-50 AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-50, Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 3CC161000329)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Gluck, JJ.) Upon consideration of Plaintiff-Appellee Compu-Link Corporation dba Celink's (Compu-Link) April 8, 2026 "Motion to Dismiss Defendant-Appellant's Interlocutory Appeal," the papers in support and in opposition, and the record, it appears that Defendant-Appellant Eleanor P. Fernandes appeals from the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit's February 17, 2026 "Order Granting Plaintiff's Non-Hearing Motion for Substitution of Real Party in Interest and for Amendment of Caption" (Substitution Order), and Compu-Link seeks dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court lacks appellate jurisdiction because the Circuit Court has not entered a final, appealable judgment resolving all claims in the underlying case, see Hawai#i Revised NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a) (2016); Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 58; Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994), and the Substitution Order is not independently appealable under the collateral-order or Forgay1 doctrines, nor has the Circuit Court granted leave for an interlocutory appeal under HRS § 641-1(b). See Greer v. Baker, 137 Hawai#i 249, 253, 369 P.3d 832, 836 (2016) (setting forth the requirements for appealability under the collateral-order doctrine and the Forgay doctrine); HRS § 641-1(b) (specifying requirements for leave to file interlocutory appeal); see also Labayog v. Labayog, 83 Hawai#i 412, 420, 927 P.2d 420, 428 (App. 1996) ("An order allowing substitution . . . is interlocutory and not appealable of right. . . . The propriety of the substitution can be raised on appeal from a final judgment."). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 16, 2026.

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

/s/ Daniel M. Gluck Associate Judge

1 Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. 201 (1848).