Lipcon v. Maliko Coffee Cottages

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 27, 2024
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000337
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 27-DEC-2024 07:48 AM Dkt. 51 OGMD

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

LAUREN LIPCON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MALIKO COFFEE COTTAGES, MAURICE SMITH, SYDNEY SMITH, AND MURPHY TAUA, individual/business, HANA A. VANDERVOORT, JOSEPH B. JACOBS, ANDREW S. FISHER, ELLEN M. FISHER, COUNTY OF MAUI, Defendants-Appellee, and DOES 1-100, Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER (By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Defendants/Counterclaimants Appellees Maliko Coffee Cottages, Maurice Smith, Sydney Smith and Murphy Taua's (collectively, Appellees) May 3, 2024 "Motion NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

to Dismiss Appeal CAAP-24-000337" (Motion), the papers in support and in opposition, and the record, 1 it appears that Appellees seek dismissal of the appeal filed by Plaintiff- Appellant Lipcon from the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit's April 23, 2024 "Order Denying [Lipcon]'s Motion to Strike [Appellees]' Motion for Preliminary Injunction" (Order) on the basis that the court lacks appellate jurisdiction. The record reflects that the Circuit Court has not entered a final, appealable decree, order, or judgment. Hawaii Revised Statues (HRS) § 641-1(a) (2016); Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rules 58, 54(b); Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai‘i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338

(1994). The Circuit Court has not certified the Order for appeal in a HRCP Rule 54(b) judgment or granted leave to file an interlocutory appeal under HRS § 641-1(b) (2016), and neither the Forgay 2 nor the collateral order doctrines apply here. 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). Nor does the Order constitute an order denying a motion to compel arbitration under HRS § 658-28(a)(1) as Lipcon urges.

1 We have also considered Plaintiff-Appellant Lauren Lipcon's (Lipcon) July 1, 2024 "Statement of Jurisdiction" and Appellees' July 1, 2024 "Counterstatement of Jurisdiction," which reiterate their respective arguments regarding appellate jurisdiction.

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

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

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, December 27, 2024. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Presiding Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge