Wideman v. Hickam Federal Credit Union

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

Wideman v. Hickam Federal Credit Union

CourtHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2023

DocketCAAP-23-0000069

StatusPublished

This text of Wideman v. Hickam Federal Credit Union (Wideman v. Hickam Federal Credit Union) 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

Wideman v. Hickam Federal Credit Union, (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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 15-MAR-2023 08:16 AM Dkt. 22 OGMD NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

LONNELL REGINALD WIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HICKAM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; MARK (DOE); ELISA (DOE), Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Chan, JJ.) Upon consideration of self-represented Plaintiff- Appellant Lonnell Reginald Wideman's (Wideman) February 27, 2023 Motion to Dismiss Appeal Without Prejudice (Motion to Dismiss), the papers in support, the record, and there being no opposition, it appears that Wideman moves under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 42(b): (1) to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the appeal is from a February 2, 2023 minute order, and not from a final, appealable written order or judgment; and (2) to fix terms in the dismissal order allowing him to refile the underlying claims with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. We agree and conclude that the court lacks appellate jurisdiction because "a minute order is not an appealable order." Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai i 319, 321 n.3, 966 P.2d 631, 633 n.3 (1998); see also Hawaii Revised Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016); Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 54(b), 58; Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

76 Hawai i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994). As the court lacks appellate jurisdiction, it is not in a position to dismiss the appeal upon the terms Wideman requests. Pele Def. Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 77 Hawai i 64, 69 n.10, 881 P.2d 1210, 1215 n.10 (1994). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1. The appeal is dismissed under HRAP Rule 42(b). 2. All other relief requested is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, March 15, 2023.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka 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 15-MAR-2023 08:16 AM Dkt. 22 OGMD NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

LONNELL REGINALD WIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HICKAM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; MARK (DOE); ELISA (DOE), Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Chan, JJ.) Upon consideration of self-represented Plaintiff- Appellant Lonnell Reginald Wideman's (Wideman) February 27, 2023 Motion to Dismiss Appeal Without Prejudice (Motion to Dismiss), the papers in support, the record, and there being no opposition, it appears that Wideman moves under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 42(b): (1) to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the appeal is from a February 2, 2023 minute order, and not from a final, appealable written order or judgment; and (2) to fix terms in the dismissal order allowing him to refile the underlying claims with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. We agree and conclude that the court lacks appellate jurisdiction because "a minute order is not an appealable order." Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai i 319, 321 n.3, 966 P.2d 631, 633 n.3 (1998); see also Hawaii Revised Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016); Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 54(b), 58; Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

76 Hawai i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994). As the court lacks appellate jurisdiction, it is not in a position to dismiss the appeal upon the terms Wideman requests. Pele Def. Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 77 Hawai i 64, 69 n.10, 881 P.2d 1210, 1215 n.10 (1994). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1. The appeal is dismissed under HRAP Rule 42(b). 2. All other relief requested is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, March 15, 2023.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wideman v. Hickam Federal Credit Union, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wideman-v-hickam-federal-credit-union-hawapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack