Fukuyama v. Jeremiah

CourtHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 9, 2026
DocketCAAP-25-0000826
StatusPublished

This text of Fukuyama v. Jeremiah (Fukuyama v. Jeremiah) 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.

Bluebook
Fukuyama v. Jeremiah, (hawapp 2026).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 09-JUN-2026 08:04 AM Dkt. 16 ODSD

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

KEN FUKUYAMA, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. ARTHUR JEREMIAH, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT ‘EWA DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Guidry and Gluck, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief were due on or before January 15, 2026, and February 17, 2026, respectively; (2) Self-represented Defendant/Counterclaimant- Appellant Arthur Jeremiah (Jeremiah) failed to file either document or request an extension of time; (3) On February 23, 2026, the appellate clerk entered a default notice informing Jeremiah that the time for filing the statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the matter would be called to the court's attention on March 5, 2026, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the appeal, under Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Jeremiah could request relief from default by motion; (4) The appellate clerk mailed the notice of entering case on calendar and the default notice to Jeremiah at his address on record. The United States Postal Service did not return the notice of entering case on calendar but returned the default notice as not deliverable and unable to forward; and (5) Jeremiah has not filed a notice of change of address, consistent with HRAP Rule 25(f), or taken any further action in this appeal since filing the notice of appeal. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 9, 2026. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Presiding Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge

/s/ Daniel M. Gluck Associate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fukuyama v. Jeremiah, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fukuyama-v-jeremiah-hawapp-2026.