Opinion
CAAP-23-0000476
09-11-2023
ROSEL LYN ROMANCIA; CHANTELLE LYNN KANANI FERNANDEZ; SABRINA CELETE ROBERSON, aka SABRINA ROBERSON-ARGEND, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MICHAEL YELLEN, Defendant-Appellant
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT PUNA DIVISION (CIVIL NO. 3DRC-22-0000507)
Leonard, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Upon review of the record, it appears that self-represented Defendant-Appellant Michael Yellen (Yellen) appeals from the District Court of the Third Circuit, Puna Division's May 10, 2023 Judgment for Possession (Judgment) and July 25, 2023 minute order denying Yellen's September 23, 2022 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Instant Case (Oral Order).
Though the Judgment is appealable pursuant to the Forgay doctrine, Ciesla v. Reddish, 78 Hawaii 18, 20, 889 P.2d 702, 704 (1995), Yellen filed the August 11, 2023 notice of appeal more than 30 days after its entry, which is outside of the deadline set forth in Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(1). The record does not indicate that Yellen timely requested or received an extension of time to appeal, or that the deadline was otherwise tolled or extended. Compliance with the requirement of timely filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. Grattafiori v. State, 79 Hawaii 10, 13, 897 P.2d 937, 940 (1995).
Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. 201 (1848) . No final judgment, order, or decree has been entered in the underlying case. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a) (2016).
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). Even if the Oral Order was reduced to a written order, it would not be appealable under HRS § 641-1(a), and no exception to finality applies. See Greer v. Baker, 137 Hawaii 249, 253, 369 P.3d 832, 836 (2016) (setting forth the requirements for appealability under the collateral-order doctrine and the Forgay doctrine).
When the court "perceive[s] a jurisdictional defect in an appeal, [it] must, sua sponte, dismiss that appeal." Bacon v. Karlin, 68 Haw. 648, 650, 727 P.2d 1127, 1129 (1986).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are dismissed.