NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 07-JUN-2024 07:51 AM Dkt. 183 SO
NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE; CIT BANK NA F/K/A ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.; ALDRIDGE PITE LLP F/K/A PITE DUNCAN LLP, Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST SERIES 2006-A8 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-H, Counterclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, and DOES 1-20, Counterclaim Defendants, and FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.; and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF MAUI, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-5; DOE ASSOCIATIONS 1-5; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-5; and DOE ENTITIES 1-5, Third-Party Defendants,
and NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE; CIT BANK NA F/K/A ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.; ALDRIDGE PITE LLP F/K/A PITE DUNCAN LLP, Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST SERIES 2006-A8 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-H, Counterclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, and DOES 1-20, Counterclaim Defendants, and FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.; and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF MAUI, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-5; DOE ASSOCIATIONS 1-5; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-5; and DOE ENTITIES 1-5, Third-Party Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CC171000090)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
These consolidated appeals arise out of litigation
relating to a non-judicial foreclosure of real property (the
Haʻikū property) that was owned by self-represented
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant Michael C. Greenspon
(Greenspon). In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, Greenspon appeals from the
Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure [(HRCP)] Rule 54(b) Final
Judgment Dismissing All Claims of the March 21, 2018 Second
Amended Complaint (SAC) as to Defendant Aldridge Pite, LLP F/K/A
Pite Duncan, LLP (AP), entered on July 23, 2019 (Rule 54(b)
Judgment), by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
court).1 The Rule 54(b) Judgment, entered in favor of AP,
dismissed all claims in the second amended complaint against AP.2
In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, Greenspon appeals from the Final
Judgment (Judgment), entered on June 10, 2020, by the circuit
court. The Judgment, entered in favor of CIT Bank NA F/K/A
OneWest Bank, F.S.B. (CIT)3 and against Greenspon, dismissed all
remaining claims in the second amended complaint.4
1 The Honorable Peter T. Cahill presided.
2 Greenspon appealed in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX on May 17, 2019, from the following predicate orders:
1. Order Denying Plaintiff's January 8, 2018 Motion to Substitute Aldridge Pite, LLP for Defendant Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., entered April 12, 2018;
2. Order Granting Defendant Aldridge Pite, LLP's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed March 21, 2018, or, in the First Alternative, for Summary Judgment, or in the Second Alternative, for More Definite Statement, Filed May 3, 2018, entered August 13, 2018;
3. "Notice of Setting" (Order Denying in Part Greenspon's August 27, 2018 "Rule 54(b) Motion to 1) Set Aside Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal of Second Amended Complaint as to Aldridge Pite, LLP and to Bifurcate Claims, and/or 2) To Expressly Enter the Dismissal Order as Final"), entered September 20, 2018; and
4. Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification of August 13, 2018 Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint as to Defendant Aldridge Pite, LLP, entered April 29, 2019.
This court temporarily remanded the case to the circuit court for entry of the July 2020 Rule 54(b) Judgment.
3 All claims against AP were previously dismissed pursuant to the Rule 54(b) Judgment, and all claims for and against Defendant/ Counterclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust (Deutsche Bank) were previously dismissed by stipulation.
4 Greenspon's opening brief, in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, also asserts points of error with respect to the following five predicate orders,
(continued . . .) 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Upon careful review of the record and relevant legal
authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments
advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve
Greenspon's points of error5 as follows:
(1) Greenspon contends that the circuit court erred by
dismissing the second amended complaint, and in failing to find
that it adequately alleged claims against AP for: (1) "fraud and
tortious litigation conduct"; (2) "patently illegal activities";
(3) "abusive collections practices"; (4) participating in
"unfair methods of competition"; and (5) participating in a
"fraud on the market" and "combination in restraint of trade in
violation of [Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes] § 480-4[.]"
4(. . . continued)
1. Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Summary Judgment RE: Counterclaim, Filed January 17, 2017, entered June 6, 2017;
2. Order Denying Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment RE: Counterclaim, Filed February 14, 2018, entered April 12, 2018;
3. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on SAC Claims for Wrongful Foreclosure and Unfair/Deceptive Practices, Filed April 18, 2018, entered August 6, 2018;
4. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment RE Wrongful Foreclosure as to Defendants CIT/DBNTC, Filed June 27, 2018, Without Prejudice, entered January 30, 2019;
5. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant [CIT's] Motion For Terminating Sanctions, Filed April 3, 2020, entered May 18, 2020 (Sanctions Order).
5 We have reordered and consolidated Greenspon's points of error in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, and, with regard to CAAP-20-00000442, we limit our review to the dispositive point of error. See, infra, note 9.
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
"A circuit court's ruling on a motion to dismiss is
reviewed de novo." Sierra Club v. Dep't of Transp., 115 Hawaiʻi
299, 312, 167 P.3d 292, 305 (2007) (citation omitted).
[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle him or her to relief. The appellate court must therefore view a plaintiff's complaint in a light most favorable to him or her in order to determine whether the allegations contained therein could warrant relief under any alternative theory. For this reason, in reviewing a circuit court's order dismissing a complaint . . . the appellate court's consideration is strictly limited to the allegations of the complaint, and the appellate court must deem those allegations to be true.
Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 143 Hawaiʻi 249, 257,
428 P.3d 761, 769 (2018) (citation omitted).
Here, Greenspon contends that the circuit court erred
in dismissing his claims against AP, which provided legal
counsel to an opposing party, Cal-Western, during the underlying
litigation.6 Hungate v. Law Off. of David B. Rosen, 139 Hawaiʻi
394, 413, 391 P.3d 1, 20 (2017) (abrogated on other grounds by
State ex rel. Shikada v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 152 Hawaiʻi
418, 526 P.3d 395 (2023)), is controlling. Hungate recognized
that "absent special circumstances, attorneys owe no duty of
care to non-clients." Id. at 405, 391 P.3d at 12. The Hungate
court thus "declined to recognize a duty in favor of a plaintiff
6 To the extent that Greenspon's allegations against AP arise from Cal-Western's alleged actions in the non-judicial foreclosure of the Haʻikū property, the record reflects that AP did not represent Cal-Western at the time of the non-judicial foreclosure. Cal-Western, which was dissolved in bankruptcy, is itself no longer a party to this action.
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
adversely affected by an attorney's performance of legal
services on behalf of the opposing party." Id. at 413, 391 P.3d
at 20.
Greenspon does not establish the basis,
notwithstanding Hungate, for a statutory or other private right
of action against an opposing party's legal counsel, based on
actions taken by counsel in representing the opposing party's
interests. The record reflects that Greenspon failed to state a
claim against AP upon which relief could be granted, and the
circuit court was not wrong in dismissing the claims against AP.
(2) Greenspon contends that the circuit court erred by
denying Greenspon's motion to substitute AP for Cal-Western in
the second amended complaint. We review the circuit court's
ruling for abuse of discretion. See Price v. Coulson, No. CAAP-
XX-XXXXXXX, 2019 WL 2417754, at *3 (Haw. App. June 10, 2019)
(SDO). Greenspon contends that,
The circuit court erred by failing to find that [AP] used its dissolved former client, Defendant Cal-Western, as its alter-ego in its attempt to obstruct [Greenspon's] discovery and conceal its own liability for the acts alleged by [Greenspon's] [second amended complaint], and thus erred in denying [Greenspon's] HRCP Rule 25(c) motion to substitute [AP] for Cal-Western.
AP's purported acquisition of Cal-Western assets
during the bankruptcy proceedings does not, without more, make
AP the "alter ego" of Cal-Western. "Generally speaking, the
question whether a corporation is a mere agency,
instrumentality, or alter ego of another corporation or
6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
individual is one of fact." Robert's Hawaii School Bus, Inc. v.
Laupahoehoe Transp. Co., Inc., 91 Hawaiʻi 224, 238, 982 P.2d 853,
867 (1999) (superseded by statute on other grounds, citing
1 William M. Fletcher, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private
Corporations § 41.95, at 699-705 (perm. ed. 1999)).
In Calipjo v. Purdy, 144 Hawaiʻi 266, 439 P.3d 218
(2019), the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court recognized that,
Courts have identified a variety of factors to determine whether a corporate entity is the alter ego of another, though no single factor is dispositive. In addition, a two-part test must be satisfied:
It must be made to appear that [1] the corporation is not only influenced and governed by that person, but that there is such a unity of interest . . . that the individuality, or separateness, of such person and corporation has ceased, and [2] that the facts are such that an adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the corporation would, under the particular circumstances, sanction a fraud or promote injustice.
Id. at 277, 439 P.3d at 229 (cleaned up). Greenspon failed to
present any evidence establishing that AP and Cal-Western shared
a "unity of interest," such that maintaining a corporate fiction
of AP and Cal-Western's "separate existence" would "sanction a
fraud or promote injustice." As discussed supra, the record
reflects that AP's role in this litigation was solely to provide
legal counsel for Cal-Western. AP, as legal counsel, and Cal-
Western, as the corporate client, were therefore separate
entities.
The circuit court did not err in denying Greenspon's
motion to substitute AP for Cal-Western.
7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(3) Greenspon contends that the circuit court erred by
not holding an evidentiary hearing regarding his motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal of his second amended
complaint. "Decisions relating to the conduct of a trial or
hearing and the adequacy of process usually involve the exercise
of discretion, and thus warrant review under the abuse of
discretion standard on appeal." TSA Int'l Ltd. v. Shimizu
Corp., 92 Hawaiʻi 243, 252, 990 P.2d 713, 722 (1999). Greenspon
has not alleged any new facts that would support his motion for
reconsideration, and the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion in determining that, given the voluminous record of
motions, papers, and exhibits, a further hearing would not be
beneficial to the court's decision-making process. The circuit
court therefore did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the
motion for reconsideration without a hearing.
(4) In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, Greenspon contends that the
circuit court erred in dismissing the second amended complaint,
on grounds that Greenspon failed to comply with discovery rules
and orders. We review the circuit court's dismissal of the
second amended complaint for an abuse of discretion.
The circuit court is given broad discretion in determining the sanctions to be imposed pursuant to HRCP Rule 37(b)(2). A trial court's imposition of a discovery abuse sanction is reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion whenever it exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party.
8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Aloha Unlimited, Inc. v. Coughlin, 79 Hawaiʻi 527, 532-33, 904
P.2d 541, 546-47 (App. 1995) (cleaned up).
Pursuant to HRCP Rule 37, the circuit court may
sanction a party for its willful disobedience with respect to
discovery orders, including the issuance of an order "dismissing
the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a
judgment by default against the disobedient party[.]" HRCP
37(b)(2)(C). In determining the appropriateness of dismissal,
the court will consider: "(1) the public's interest in the
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;
(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions."
W.H. Shipman, Ltd. v. Hawaiian Holiday Macadamia Nut Co., Inc.,
8 Haw. App. 354, 362, 802 P.2d 1203, 1207 (App. 1990).
"Dismissal with prejudice is not an abuse of
discretion when a plaintiff's deliberate delay or contumacious
conduct causes actual prejudice." Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi
368, 382, 465 P.3d 815, 829 (2020) (citation omitted). In Erum
the supreme court overturned the dismissal of appellant's
complaint when appellant failed to appear at a pretrial
conference. The supreme court held that,
[W]henever a case is involuntarily dismissed with prejudice, the trial court must state essential findings on the record or make written findings as to deliberate delay or contumacious conduct and actual prejudice and explain
9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
why a lesser sanction than dismissal with prejudice is insufficient to serve the interests of justice.
Erum, 147 Hawaiʻi at 390, 465 P.3d at 837.
This case is distinguishable from JK v. DK, 153 Hawaiʻi
268, 533 P.3d 1215 (2023), which concluded, on the record of
that case, that the trial court abused its discretion by
entering a default judgment as a discovery sanction. Id. at
278, 533 P.3d at 1225. Here, the discovery sanction against
Greenspon was warranted; Greenspon was afforded multiple
warnings that his noncompliance and contemptuous behavior would
result in sanctions.
The record reflects that the circuit court made
extensive findings7 regarding Greenspon's contumacious conduct
with respect to, inter alia, the site inspection of the Haʻikū
property, and opposing counsel's attempts to depose him:
The Site Inspection
12. On or around May 15, 2017, Mr. Rosen noticed an inspection of the [Haʻikū] Property for June 14, 2017. The inspection did not occur that day. Efforts to reschedule
7 In its May 18, 2020 Sanctions Order, the circuit court incorporated from Civil No. 2CC141000395 its May 18, 2020 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting the Motion For Rule 37 Sanctions, filed by Defendants/Third-Party Defendants David B. Rosen, Esq. and the Law Office of David B. Rosen, and joined by CIT, against Greenspon (FOF/COL). Civil No. 2CC141000395 is a closely related case, involving the same parties; the findings of fact and conclusions of law reference the site inspection and Greenspon's deposition, as discussed herein, that were part of Civil No. 2CC1710000090.
As the FOF/COL have already been adopted and incorporated into the record of this case, we deny as unnecessary AP's request, filed on May 28, 2020, in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, for this court to take judicial notice of the FOF/COL. We also deny AP's request for this court to take judicial notice of other orders filed in Civ. No. 2CC171000090 as unnecessary.
10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
proved unsuccessful and futile because Mr. Greenspon refused to allow Mr. Rosen or counsel for CIT to inspect the [Haʻikū] Property.
13. On September 11, 2018, Deutsche Bank moved in [2CC171000090] to compel an inspection of the [Haʻikū] Property. The Court granted the motion on December 21, 2018, ordering that the inspection be permitted and that it occur between April 1 and April 30, 2019.
14. On February 19, 2019, Mr. Greenspon moved for relief from the December 21, 2018 order and sought, among other things, to have the inspection scheduled for April 15-19, 2019, April 29-30, 2019, or August 1-20, 2019.
15. On February 22, 2019, the Court ordered that the site inspection occur on one of the dates requested by Mr. Greenspon. The Court entered a written order (the "[2CC171000090] Inspection Order") on March 14, 2019, directing, among other things, that "[e]ach party is permitted to have one (1) attorney and one (1) expert (e.g., a real estate consultant, an engineer or an appraiser) attend the Inspection."
16. On July 1, 2019, CIT moved in this action for an inspection of the [Haʻikū] Property. The Court denied the motion but ordered that the [2CC171000090] Inspection Order would be effective in this action.
17. At the August 5, 2019 hearing, the Court warned Mr. Greenspon that the inspection must occur, and there would be consequences, up to and including dismissal, if he failed to comply with the orders.
18. Deutsche Bank made efforts to schedule the site inspection and, on August 16, 2019, informed Mr. Greenspon that it would occur on August 19, 2019. In a subsequent communication, Mr. Greenspon stated that he would not allow the inspection to occur on that date. The Court's clerk subsequently informed the parties that the August 19, 2019 inspection would be canceled due to safety concerns, because Mr. Greenspon would not allow it to take place.
19. On July 24, 2019, the Rosen Defendants moved for discovery relief, and on October 16, 2019, the Court entered an order (the "Consolidated Case Inspection Order") granting the motion in part and stating that the inspection: (a) would occur prior to December 31, 2019; and (b) shall be conducted, but for the presence of a special master, pursuant to the [2CC171000090] Inspection Order. The Rosen Defendants noticed the inspection for December 19, 2019.
20. The Consolidated Case Inspection Order and [2CC171000090] Inspection Order permitted Mr. Rosen and attorneys for Defendants to attend the site inspection.
11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
21. At a December 18, 2019 hearing, Mr. Greenspon requested a continuance of the site inspection. The Court denied the request, stated that it would occur as noticed, and warned Mr. Greenspon to comply with the inspection orders or face consequences. Mr. Greenspon responded to the Court that, irrespective of its order, he would NEVER allow the inspection.
22. Late in the afternoon on December 18, 2019, Mr. Greenspon informed Mr. Rosen that he would not be permitted to participate in the site inspection. Plaintiff failed to present any evidence that Mr. Rosen threatened him regarding the [Haʻikū] Property.
23. On December 19, 2019, Mr. Greenspon refused to allow CIT's counsel and one of Deutsche Bank's attorneys to participate in the site inspection.
. . . .
The Events of January 15, 2020
25. On October 16, 2019, the Court ordered Mr. Greenspon to appear for his deposition between the dates of January 15-31, 2020.
26. On November 5, 2019, the Court ordered that Mr. Greenspon's deposition be conducted on January 15, 2020, beginning at 9:00 a.m. On or around January 6, 2020, the Rosen Defendants filed an amended notice for Mr. Greenspon's deposition for that date and time.
27. On January 9, 2020, CIT filed and served its Designation of Alternative Method of Recording Deposition Testimony that provided, among other things, that Mr. Greenspon's deposition would be video recorded at CIT's sole cost and expense.
28. Mr. Greenspon appeared approximately 19 minutes after the designated time that the Court set for the deposition [to] begin (9:19 am versus 9:00 am), refused to be sworn in, and would not proceed unless the video recording stopped. Mr. Greenspon exhibited clear and unequivocally hostile and verbally abusive conduct towards Mr. Rosen and CIT's counsel. Mr. Rosen and the court reporter, an innocent victim of the hostile and verbally abusive conduct, requested on multiple occasions that Mr. Greenspon not speak over counsel and to refrain from screaming. Ultimately, the record and video recording at one point reflects that the court reporter left the room and refused to further participate in the proceedings.
29. Late in the morning of January 15, 2020, the Court conducted a status conference regarding the deposition. On the record at that conference, the Court stated that "[t]he deposition will proceed pursuant to the Court's order and pursuant to the notices that have been served."
12 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
30. After returning to the court reporter's office to resume the deposition, Mr. Greenspon continued to refuse to be video recorded.
31. Mr. Greenspon then donned a mask. The mask that Mr. Greenspon wore had a clear photograph of CIT's counsel's face on it. There can be no mistake that the mask worn by Mr. Greenspon had no health benefits, pre- dated any COVID-19 requirements, had to be the result of premeditated planning, and had the intent to disrupt the deposition proceedings.
32. After Mr. Greenspon repeatedly disrupted the deposition, Mr. Rosen terminated the proceedings at approximately 12:20 p.m.
(Emphasis in original) (record citations omitted).
The above findings,8 as supported by the record
evidence, support the circuit court's conclusions that, inter
alia,
6. . . . Mr. Greenspon has consistently violated orders requiring him to comply with discovery requests. He has unequivocally stated to the Court that he intends not to comply with said orders despite being advised of the potential consequences, including the dismissal of his actions. Thus, further motions practice would be useless because Mr. Greenspon cast a die of his own making.
7. . . . Mr. Greenspon's failure to follow [the circuit court's] orders, specifically as to the site inspection and his deposition, deprived the Remaining Defendants of information material to their defense of Mr. Greenspon's claims and damages, and that such actions constitute a sizeable threat to the rightful decision of this case. . . .
9. The Court concludes that: (a) despite having brought the remaining claims in these Consolidated Actions against the Remaining Defendants, Mr. Greenspon has wrongfully failed to provide and/or permit reasonable and material discovery requested by them and ordered by this Court; (b) Mr. Greenspon's actions caused delay; and (c)
8 "Findings of fact . . . that are not challenged on appeal are binding on the appellate court." Okada Trucking Co., Ltd. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawaiʻi 450, 458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002).
13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Mr. Greenspon's conduct was willful, contumacious, and inexcusable. . . .
11. The Court has on multiple occasions warned Mr. Greenspon to comply with discovery orders or face sanctions, up to and including dismissal. Mr. Greenspon nevertheless violated the Court's orders as to the site inspection and deposition. He has demonstrated a consistent contumacious and contentious attitude towards discovery in this action. The donning of a mask bearing the picture of an attorney in the case bears heavily on this Court's conclusion that it cannot guarantee the orderliness of proceedings or the continuing safety of those participating including court personnel.
On this record, we conclude that the circuit court did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second amended
complaint.9
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit
court's July 23, 2019 Rule 54(b) Judgment, and June 10, 2020
Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 7, 2024.
On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Michael C. Greenspon, Presiding Judge Self-represented Plaintiff/Counterclaim /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge
Christina C. MacLeod, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry for Defendant-Appellee. Associate Judge
Jenny J.N.A. Nakamoto, For Defendant-Appellee.
9 Given our conclusion that the circuit court properly dismissed Greenspon's claims pursuant to HRCP Rule 37, we need not reach the additional points of error raised in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.