Song v. Mansell

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 28, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000647
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 28-APR-2026 08:33 AM Dkt. 61 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

JILL SONG, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CARTER MANSELL and SKYLER OBREGON, Respondents-Appellees; and MICHAEL MANSELL, Respondent-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT NORTH & SOUTH HILO DIVISION (CASE NO. 3DSS-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Self-represented Respondent-Appellant Michael Mansell

(Mansell) appeals from the September 6, 2024 "Order Granting

Petition for Injunction Against Harassment[ as to Mansell]"

(Injunction Order), entered by the District Court of the Third

Circuit 1 (district court).

In the underlying proceeding, Petitioner-Appellee Jill

Song (Song) filed a "Petition for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining

1 The Honorable M. Kanani Laubach presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Order and for Injunction Against Harassment" (Petition) against

Mansell and Respondents-Appellees Carter Mansell (Carter) and

Skyler Obregon.

Mansell asserts three points of error on appeal,

contending that the district court erred by: (1) "allowing

[Song's attorney] to practice improper legal tactics such as

harassment and intimidation of the appellate [sic] in and out of

the courtroom prohibiting Appellate [sic] from providing an

adequate defense on his behalf"; (2) "allowing [Song's attorney]

to provide defense for [Song] against Appellate [sic] after

[Song's attorney] was instructed by Hawaii Police Department not

to have any contact with Appellate [sic]"; and (3) "granting the

restraining order against Appellate [sic] when Appellate [sic]

had never seen, nor had any interaction, with [Song] prior to

her court appearance."

Upon careful review of the record, Mansell's opening

brief, 2 and the relevant legal authorities, we resolve Mansell's

points of error as follows:

(1) We decline to address Mansell's first and second

points of error. Mansell contends that the district court erred

by allowing Song's attorney "to practice improper legal tactics

such as harassment and intimidation" against him, and by

2 Song did not file an answering brief.

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

permitting Song's attorney to continue to represent Song. The

transcript for the hearing on Song's Petition is not in the

record, and the record does not reflect that these issues were

raised by Mansell, argued by the parties, or considered by the

district court. See Orso v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 55 Haw.

37, 38, 514 P.2d 859, 860 (1973) ("Matters not appearing in the

record will not be considered by the court of appeals, unless

the occurrence thereof is conceded by the parties. Thus[,] a

question involving evidence not in the record cannot be reviewed

on appeal." (citation omitted)).

(2) Mansell's third point of error contends that the

district court erred in granting Song's Petition. Mansell

appears to dispute that the evidence Song produced is sufficient

to support the Injunction Order. "Whether there was substantial

evidence to support an injunction against an alleged harasser is

reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard." Duarte v.

Young, 134 Hawaiʻi 459, 462, 342 P.3d 878, 881 (App. 2014)

(cleaned up).

It appears that Song produced evidence at the hearing

to support her Petition. As pointed out, supra, the hearing

transcript is not in the record. Nor does Mansell point to any

evidence in the record establishing that he "had never seen" nor

"had any interaction with" Song, and that he "did not drive past

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

her house." We are therefore unable to discern any basis for

Mansell's contention that the district court erred in granting

the Injunction Order.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Injunction

Order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 28, 2026.

On the brief: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge Michael Mansell, Self-Represented /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Respondent-Appellant. Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge