Douglas Engineering Pacific, Inc. v. Building Board of Appeals of the City & County of Honolulu
This text of Douglas Engineering Pacific, Inc. v. Building Board of Appeals of the City & County of Honolulu (Douglas Engineering Pacific, Inc. v. Building Board of Appeals of the City & County of Honolulu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 21-AUG-2024 10:30 AM Dkt. 51 ORD
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
DOUGLAS ENGINEERING PACIFIC, INC., and OHANA CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioners-Appellants-Appellants, v. BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Respondent-Appellee-Appellee, and DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING, and the HONOLULU FIRE DEPARTMENT, Intervenors-Appellees-Appellees,
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL (By: Guidry, J.)
Upon consideration of the Notice of Disassociation
From Firm (Notice of Disassociation), filed August 20, 2024, by
Petitioners-Appellants-Appellants Douglas Engineering Pacific,
Inc. (Douglas), and Ohana Control Systems, Inc. (Ohana), which
the court construes as a motion to withdraw as counsel, under Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 50(a), it
appears that:
(1) Douglas and Ohana are represented in this appeal
by attorneys with the Tsugawa Lau & Muzzi LLC law firm (TLM);
(2) Attorney Leila M. Rothwell (Rothwell) is no longer
associated with TLM;
(3) Attorney Christopher J. Muzzi (Muzzi) will remain
as counsel for Douglas and Ohana, and requests that this court
remove Rothwell as attorney for Douglas and Ohana so that both
paper and electronic notices to Rothwell in this matter shall be
discontinued;
(4) HRAP Rule 50(a) provides, with respect to
withdrawal, that an attorney moving to withdraw as counsel of
record "must show that notice of the motion was given by service
upon the attorney's client." HRAP Rule 50(a); and
(5) The Certificate of Service signed by Muzzi
certifies that both Douglas and Ohana were duly served with
copies of the Notice of Disassociation at their last known
addresses on August 20, 2024.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Notice of
Disassociation, construed as a motion to withdraw as counsel, is
granted.
2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellate clerk shall
end Rothwell as a party to this appeal in the Judiciary
Information Management System.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, August 21, 2024.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Douglas Engineering Pacific, Inc. v. Building Board of Appeals of the City & County of Honolulu, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-engineering-pacific-inc-v-building-board-of-appeals-of-the-city-hawapp-2024.