Psak v. Kardash

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 31, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000818
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 31-MAR-2026 08:05 AM Dkt. 79 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

JERRE PSAK, Petitioner-Appellee, v. KEITH KARDASH, Respondent-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CIVIL NO. 1DSS-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

Self-represented Respondent-Appellant Keith Kardash

appeals from the District Court of the First Circuit's

November 26, 2024 summary denial of his post-judgment "Expedited

Non-Hearing Ex Parte Motion for an Order Staying Enforcement of

First Amended Injunction Against Harassment Filed on 11/1/23

Pending a Court Hearing on Respondent's Non-Hearing Motion for

an Order Clarifiying [sic] the Vague and Ambiguous Special

Conditions 1 and 2 of the First Amended Injunction Against NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Harassment Filed on 11/1/23, Filed on 7/30/24, and on

Respondent's Non-Hearing Motion for a Court Order Allowing

Respondent to Play the Violin" (Order Denying Motion to Stay). 1

(Formatting altered.) The First Amended Injunction Against

Harassment was entered in favor of his neighbor, Petitioner-

Appellee Jerre Psak, on November 1, 2023, pursuant to Hawaiʻi

Revised Statutes § 604-10.5 (2016 & Supp. 2023). 2

Kardash's opening brief consists of two sentences:

Judge Chris A.K. Thomas and Judge David Hayakawa were biased, failed to support their decisions with evidence, testimony or legal basis, abused their power and violated the Hawaii Revised Code of Judicial Conduct. This Honorable Court should reverse Judge Thomas' and Judge Hayakawa's decisions, vacate Petitioner-Appellee JERRE PSAK'S injunction and award Respondent-Appellant KEITH D. KARDASH with attorney's fees and costs.

See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)

(setting forth opening brief requirements); HRAP Rule 1(d)

("Attorneys and pro se parties are deemed to be aware of, and

are expected to comply with, all of the provisions of these

rules."). No answering brief was filed.

Kardash appears to seek reversal of the district

court's various orders, vacatur of the First Amended Injunction

Against Harassment, and an award of attorneys' fees. However,

1 The Honorable David M. Hayakawa entered the November 26, 2024 Order Denying Motion to Stay.

2 The Honorable Chris A.K. Thomas entered the November 1, 2023 First Amended Injunction Against Harassment. There was no appeal from this injunction. Thus, we have no jurisdiction to review the First Amended Injunction Against Harassment.

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

Kardash appeals from the Order Denying Motion to Stay and

presents no discernible argument upon which this court can

conclude the district court abused its discretion as to that

order. See Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380, 465 P.3d 815,

827 (2020) (requiring self-represented filings to be liberally

construed "so long as the litigant's argument can reasonably be

discerned").

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's

November 26, 2024 Order Denying Motion to Stay.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 31, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge Keith Kardash, Self-represented /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Respondent-Appellant. Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge