Summary
In Hawaiian Tel. Co., we construed similar "[plaintiff] may file X in the county in which Y" syntax as mandatory and jurisdictional.
Summary of this case from Hawaii Home v. BefitelOpinion
NO. 9209
January 30, 1984
APPEAL FROM THIRD CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE SHUNICHI KIMURA, JUDGE.
LUM, C.J., PADGETT AND HAYASHI, JJ., INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUDGE WALTER M. HEEN, IN PLACE OF NAKAMURA, J., DISQUALIFIED, AND INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS CHIEF JUDGE JAMES S. BURNS, IN PLACE OF WAKATSUKI, J., DISQUALIFIED
Richard M. Rand (Jared H. Jossem with him on the brief, Torkildson, Katz, Jossem Fonseca of counsel) for appellant.
Herbert R. Takahashi for appellees Amay et al.
This is an appeal from three orders of the Third Circuit dismissing appeals from decisions of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. Those decisions dismissed appeals by the appellant from decisions awarding benefits to appellant's employees who were either residents of the County of Hawaii or whose last place of employment was the County of Hawaii because the appellant filed its notices of appeal with the Department's office on Oahu rather than on Hawaii as required by HRS § 383-38. Appellant contends that the filing requirement is a matter of venue rather than a matter of jurisdiction. We do not agree. The first sentence of HRS § 383-38 states where and when a notice of appeal will be filed. The second sentence deals with where it is to be heard. As appellant concedes, the time provision in the first sentence is jurisdictional. We think the place requirement is likewise jurisdictional. Appellant's other contentions we deem without substantial merit. Affirmed.