Navasca v. Ross

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

Navasca v. Ross

CourtHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 19, 2023

DocketCAAP-22-0000576

StatusPublished

This text of Navasca v. Ross (Navasca v. Ross) 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

Navasca v. Ross, (hawapp 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 19-MAY-2023 08:16 AM Dkt. 24 ODSD NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

LIGAYA NAVASCA and RAYMOND SEBASTIAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT ROSS, Defendant-Appellant, and PAUL HAYCRAFT; DAVID YAMADA; WALTER SERGENT; and GENE SORDILLA, Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CIVIL NO. 1DRC-21-10106)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Nakasone and Chan, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief were due on or before November 21, 2022, and December 19, 2022, respectively; (2) Self-represented Defendant-Appellant Robert Ross (Ross) failed to file either document, or request an extension of time; (3) On January 20, 2023, the appellate clerk entered a default notice informing Ross 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 January 30, 2023, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of the appeal, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Ross could request relief from default by motion; NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) The appellate clerk mailed the notice of entering case on calendar and the default notice to Ross at his addresses on record in this appeal and they were returned as undeliverable; (5) HRAP Rule 25(f) requires a self-represented party, within 10 days of any change in mailing address, to file a notice of change of address with the appellate clerk; and (6) Ross has not filed a notice of change of address, and Ross took no further action in this appeal. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, May 19, 2023.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 19-MAY-2023 08:16 AM Dkt. 24 ODSD NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

LIGAYA NAVASCA and RAYMOND SEBASTIAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT ROSS, Defendant-Appellant, and PAUL HAYCRAFT; DAVID YAMADA; WALTER SERGENT; and GENE SORDILLA, Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CIVIL NO. 1DRC-21-10106)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Nakasone and Chan, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief were due on or before November 21, 2022, and December 19, 2022, respectively; (2) Self-represented Defendant-Appellant Robert Ross (Ross) failed to file either document, or request an extension of time; (3) On January 20, 2023, the appellate clerk entered a default notice informing Ross 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 January 30, 2023, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of the appeal, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Ross could request relief from default by motion; NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) The appellate clerk mailed the notice of entering case on calendar and the default notice to Ross at his addresses on record in this appeal and they were returned as undeliverable; (5) HRAP Rule 25(f) requires a self-represented party, within 10 days of any change in mailing address, to file a notice of change of address with the appellate clerk; and (6) Ross has not filed a notice of change of address, and Ross took no further action in this appeal. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, May 19, 2023.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Navasca v. Ross, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/navasca-v-ross-hawapp-2023.