Raquinio v. Subaru Hyundai Big Island Motors

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 10, 2024
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000304
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 10-OCT-2024 08:00 AM Dkt. 31 ODSLJ

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

NOE RAQUINIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUBARU HYUNDAI BIG ISLAND MOTORS, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT NORTH AND SOUTH KONA DIVISION (CASE NO. 3DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Defendant-Appellee Subaru Hyundai

Big Island Motors' (BI Motors) May 10, 2024 Motion to Dismiss

Appeal (Motion), the papers in support, and the record, it

appears that:

(1) Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Noe Raquinio

(Raquinio) appeals from the April 9, 2024 oral decision of the

District Court of the Third Circuit, North and South Kona

Division (District Court) to grant BI Motors' Motion for Order

Requiring Plaintiff to Post Security and for Prefiling Order.

(2) We construe Raquinio's notice of appeal as a

premature appeal from the District Court's April 17, 2024 Order NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Granting [BI Motors'] Motion for Order Requiring [Raquinio] to

Post Security and for Prefiling Order (Bond Order), under Hawai#i

Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(2).

(3) BI Motors asks the court to dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction because no final, appealable order has been

entered in the underlying case.

(4) We agree and conclude the appeal is premature.

Though the Bond Order states that the District Court will dismiss

the underlying case with prejudice if Raquinio fails to post the specified bond within twenty days, the order does not constitute

an automatic dismissal effective within twenty days, but rather,

contemplates further action (or inaction) by the parties before

entry of a dismissal order. Cf. Hawai#i Revised Statutes § 641-

1(a) (2016); Casumpang v. ILWU, Local 142, 91 Hawai#i 425, 426,

984 P.2d 1251, 1252 (1999) ("When a written judgment, order, or

decree ends the litigation by fully deciding all rights and

liabilities of all parties, leaving nothing further to be

adjudicated, the judgment, order, or decree is final and

appealable."). Further, the Bond Order is not immediately

appealable under the collateral-order or Forgay1 doctrines. 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).

1 Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. 201 (1848). 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I 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, October 10, 2024.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Juge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge