NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 05-MAR-2026 08:07 AM Dkt. 45 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
TBC KOLOA TOWN, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PIZZETTA, INC.; JOHN HALTER, Defendants-Appellees, and CATHERINE M. SHYNE, Defendant-Appellant, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Catherine M. Shyne (Shyne) appeals
from the December 4, 2023 Order Granting Plaintiff TBC Koloa Town
LLC's [TBC's] Motion for Order of Contempt, Issuance of Bench
Warrant, and Contempt Sanctions Against Defendants John Halter
and Catherine M. Shyne Filed on October 6, 2023 (Contempt Order)
filed by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Court)1
in favor of TBC.
Shyne raises five points of error on appeal, contending
that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) granting TBC's motion for
order of contempt; (2) not applying the rules regarding oral
examination of a non-resident witness in the order to appear for
1 The Honorable Kathleen N.A. Watanabe presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
a debtor's examination issued against a non-resident judgment
debtor; (3) not applying the rules regarding the deposition of a
non-resident witness in the order to appear for a debtor's
examination issued against a non-resident judgment debtor; (4)
compelling a non-resident defendant to personally appear before
the Circuit Court in Hawai i; and (5) exercising jurisdiction
outside Hawai i by compelling a resident of Washington State to
appear before the court for a judgment debtor's examination.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Shyne's
points of error as follows:
First, we note that Shyne's Opening Brief – in
particular, the Statement of Points of Error — is woefully non-
compliant with Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule
28(b). Although represented by counsel, Shyne has wholly failed
to identify where in the record the Circuit Court's alleged
errors occurred and where in the record the Circuit Court's
alleged errors were objected to or the manner in which the
alleged errors were brought to the Circuit Court's attention.
See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4). The arguments contained in Shyne's
Opening Brief are untethered to the points of error raised,
provide scant and incomplete references to the parts of the
record relied upon, and for the most part, do not identify the
ruling or order professed to constitute reversible error.
See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7). We nevertheless attempt to address the
merits of Shyne's appeal.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
We begin with points of error 2, 3, and 5, which raise
various arguments that appear to challenge (on appeal) the
Circuit Court's August 8, 2022 Order Granting [TBC's] Ex Parte
Motion for Examination of Judgment Debtor (Order for Judgment
Debtor Exam), which ordered Shyne to appear before the Circuit
Court and to be orally examined on September 13, 2022. A
certificate of service filed by TBC and an electronic notice
filed in the Judiciary Electronic Filing System (JEFS) indicate
that the Order for Judgment Debtor Exam was served on counsel of
record for Shyne through JEFS. Shyne took no action prior to
September 13, 2022, and did not appear.
Pointing to Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)
Rule 69, Shyne argues, inter alia, that "the judgment creditor
may obtain discovery from the judgment debtor in the manner
provided in the rules for taking deposition" and that the Order
for Judgment Debtor Exam was flawed because it ordered her
examination in Hawai i, not Washington State. However, as argued
in TBC's Answering Brief, HRCP Rule 32(e)(1) provides that "[a]ll
errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition
are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the
party giving notice." Here, notwithstanding a series of
additional filings and proceedings related to the Order for
Judgment Debtor Exam, Shyne did not raise any objection based on
the location of the examination until well over a year later. 2
2 On September 20, 2023, Shyne filed a motion to quash the Order for Judgment Debtor Exam, as well as to quash an order to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court (Motion to Quash). The Motion to Quash came on for hearing on October 25, 2023. The motion was denied, Shyne's judgment debtor exam was continued to November 2, 2023, and Shyne was allowed to appear remotely by Zoom, but did not appear. A written order denying the Motion to Quash was entered on November 2, 2023 (Order Denying Motion to (continued...)
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Shyne makes no argument on appeal that she timely
raised written objections to the location noticed for her
judgment debtor exam. We conclude that such arguments were
waived.
We turn to point of error 4, in which Shyne argues that
the Circuit Court erred in compelling a non-resident defendant to
personally appear before the court in Hawai i. As discussed
above, Shyne fails to identify the order or orders challenged in
this point of error or where in the record she raised an
objection or brought the issue to the Circuit Court's attention.
Shyne appears to argue that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction
to require her to appear before the Circuit Court for a judgment
debtor's exam, and cites Hawai i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 603-
21.9(3) (2016). As a party to this action, the Circuit Court has
personal jurisdiction over Shyne and subject matter jurisdiction
to issue orders in aid of its jurisdiction, and to take steps as
may be necessary to carry into full effect the powers given to
the court or for the promotion of justice in pending matters.
See HRS §§ 603-21.9(1) & (6) (2016). The Circuit Court has each
of these powers, and it would be an absurd result to conclude
that the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to make post-judgment,
enforcement-related orders under HRS §§ 603-21.9(1) or (6).
Indeed, the Circuit Court later ordered Shyne to appear for
examination by Zoom, rather than by personal attendance. Shyne
2 (...continued) Quash). On this appeal, Shyne does not mention, let alone challenge, the November 2, 2023 Order Denying Motion to Quash, and does not provide a transcript for the November 2, 2023 hearing. Any challenge to the Order Denying Motion to Quash is waived. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) & (7).
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
makes no argument that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to
proceed in this manner. We cannot conclude that the Circuit
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 05-MAR-2026 08:07 AM Dkt. 45 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
TBC KOLOA TOWN, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PIZZETTA, INC.; JOHN HALTER, Defendants-Appellees, and CATHERINE M. SHYNE, Defendant-Appellant, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Catherine M. Shyne (Shyne) appeals
from the December 4, 2023 Order Granting Plaintiff TBC Koloa Town
LLC's [TBC's] Motion for Order of Contempt, Issuance of Bench
Warrant, and Contempt Sanctions Against Defendants John Halter
and Catherine M. Shyne Filed on October 6, 2023 (Contempt Order)
filed by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Court)1
in favor of TBC.
Shyne raises five points of error on appeal, contending
that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) granting TBC's motion for
order of contempt; (2) not applying the rules regarding oral
examination of a non-resident witness in the order to appear for
1 The Honorable Kathleen N.A. Watanabe presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
a debtor's examination issued against a non-resident judgment
debtor; (3) not applying the rules regarding the deposition of a
non-resident witness in the order to appear for a debtor's
examination issued against a non-resident judgment debtor; (4)
compelling a non-resident defendant to personally appear before
the Circuit Court in Hawai i; and (5) exercising jurisdiction
outside Hawai i by compelling a resident of Washington State to
appear before the court for a judgment debtor's examination.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Shyne's
points of error as follows:
First, we note that Shyne's Opening Brief – in
particular, the Statement of Points of Error — is woefully non-
compliant with Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule
28(b). Although represented by counsel, Shyne has wholly failed
to identify where in the record the Circuit Court's alleged
errors occurred and where in the record the Circuit Court's
alleged errors were objected to or the manner in which the
alleged errors were brought to the Circuit Court's attention.
See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4). The arguments contained in Shyne's
Opening Brief are untethered to the points of error raised,
provide scant and incomplete references to the parts of the
record relied upon, and for the most part, do not identify the
ruling or order professed to constitute reversible error.
See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7). We nevertheless attempt to address the
merits of Shyne's appeal.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
We begin with points of error 2, 3, and 5, which raise
various arguments that appear to challenge (on appeal) the
Circuit Court's August 8, 2022 Order Granting [TBC's] Ex Parte
Motion for Examination of Judgment Debtor (Order for Judgment
Debtor Exam), which ordered Shyne to appear before the Circuit
Court and to be orally examined on September 13, 2022. A
certificate of service filed by TBC and an electronic notice
filed in the Judiciary Electronic Filing System (JEFS) indicate
that the Order for Judgment Debtor Exam was served on counsel of
record for Shyne through JEFS. Shyne took no action prior to
September 13, 2022, and did not appear.
Pointing to Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)
Rule 69, Shyne argues, inter alia, that "the judgment creditor
may obtain discovery from the judgment debtor in the manner
provided in the rules for taking deposition" and that the Order
for Judgment Debtor Exam was flawed because it ordered her
examination in Hawai i, not Washington State. However, as argued
in TBC's Answering Brief, HRCP Rule 32(e)(1) provides that "[a]ll
errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition
are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the
party giving notice." Here, notwithstanding a series of
additional filings and proceedings related to the Order for
Judgment Debtor Exam, Shyne did not raise any objection based on
the location of the examination until well over a year later. 2
2 On September 20, 2023, Shyne filed a motion to quash the Order for Judgment Debtor Exam, as well as to quash an order to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court (Motion to Quash). The Motion to Quash came on for hearing on October 25, 2023. The motion was denied, Shyne's judgment debtor exam was continued to November 2, 2023, and Shyne was allowed to appear remotely by Zoom, but did not appear. A written order denying the Motion to Quash was entered on November 2, 2023 (Order Denying Motion to (continued...)
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Shyne makes no argument on appeal that she timely
raised written objections to the location noticed for her
judgment debtor exam. We conclude that such arguments were
waived.
We turn to point of error 4, in which Shyne argues that
the Circuit Court erred in compelling a non-resident defendant to
personally appear before the court in Hawai i. As discussed
above, Shyne fails to identify the order or orders challenged in
this point of error or where in the record she raised an
objection or brought the issue to the Circuit Court's attention.
Shyne appears to argue that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction
to require her to appear before the Circuit Court for a judgment
debtor's exam, and cites Hawai i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 603-
21.9(3) (2016). As a party to this action, the Circuit Court has
personal jurisdiction over Shyne and subject matter jurisdiction
to issue orders in aid of its jurisdiction, and to take steps as
may be necessary to carry into full effect the powers given to
the court or for the promotion of justice in pending matters.
See HRS §§ 603-21.9(1) & (6) (2016). The Circuit Court has each
of these powers, and it would be an absurd result to conclude
that the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to make post-judgment,
enforcement-related orders under HRS §§ 603-21.9(1) or (6).
Indeed, the Circuit Court later ordered Shyne to appear for
examination by Zoom, rather than by personal attendance. Shyne
2 (...continued) Quash). On this appeal, Shyne does not mention, let alone challenge, the November 2, 2023 Order Denying Motion to Quash, and does not provide a transcript for the November 2, 2023 hearing. Any challenge to the Order Denying Motion to Quash is waived. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) & (7).
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
makes no argument that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to
proceed in this manner. We cannot conclude that the Circuit
Court erred in compelling Shyne to appear for a judgment debtor
examination based on a lack of jurisdiction.
Finally, we address point of error 1, in which Shyne
argues that the Circuit Court erred in entering the Contempt
Order.
Shyne first argues that she should not be held liable
for contempt because TBC failed to follow proper procedures in
noticing the judgment debtor exam in Hawai i, rather than
Washington State. As discussed above, Shyne waived her
objections to the Order for Judgment Debtor Exam based on the
location specified in the order. Accordingly, we conclude that
this basis for setting aside the Contempt Order is without merit.
Shyne also argues that TBC is not entitled to
attorneys' fees and costs under HRCP Rule 37(d), as ordered in
the Contempt Order. Shyne submits that the general rule is that
it is presumed that a deposition will take place at the location
of the residence of the person to be deposed or examined, and
therefore, TBC did not follow proper procedure and is not
entitled to attorneys' fees stemming from her failure to appear.
This is simply another facet of the same argument. As discussed
above, Shyne waived her objections to the Order for Judgment
Debtor Exam based on the location specified in the order.
Accordingly, we conclude that this basis for setting aside the
Contempt Order is without merit.
Shyne presents no other discernible argument warranting
the set aside of the Contempt Order.
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
For these reasons, the Circuit Court's December 4, 2023
Contempt Order is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, March 5, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge David R. Squeri, Carlo Reyes, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth (Greater Pacific Law Office, Associate Judge LLLC) for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge Calvert G. Chipchase, Michael R. Soon Fah, (Cades Schutte) for Plaintiff-Appellee.