Opinion
CAAP-20-0000477
05-31-2024
SCARLETT A. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL H. TSUCHIDA; MYHRE, TSUCHIDA, RICHARDS & STROM, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, A LAW CORPORATION; DTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY; MICHELLE SAITO, PRESIDENT OF DTRIC; JEFFREY CRABTREE, AS AN INDIVIDUAL; VIRGINIA CRANDALL, AS AN INDIVIDUAL; PATRICIA OHARA, AS AN INDIVIDUAL; MICHAEL K. TANIGAWA, AS AN INDIVIDUAL; JEANNETTE H. CASTAGNETTI, AS AN INDIVIDUAL; RALPH ROSENBERG AS AN INDIVIDUAL; RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.; CRISCENTA GAOIRAN, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, NOT AS AN EMPLOYEE OF STRAUB HOSPITAL MEDICAL RECORDS DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees
Scarlett A. Taylor, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se. Michael H. Tsuchida, (Myhre, Tsuchida, Richards & Storm), for Defendants-Appellees MICHAEL H. TSUCHIDA and MYHRE TSUCHIDA RICHARDS & STORM.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 1CCV-19-0002412)
Scarlett A. Taylor, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se.
Michael H. Tsuchida, (Myhre, Tsuchida, Richards & Storm), for Defendants-Appellees MICHAEL H. TSUCHIDA and MYHRE TSUCHIDA RICHARDS & STORM.
Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Scarlett A. Taylor (Taylor), self-represented, appeals from the June 23, 2020 Final Judgment (Judgment) entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) in favor of Defendants-Appellees Michael H. Tsuchida; Myhre, Tsuchida, Richards & Storm, Attorneys at Law, a Law Corporation; DTRIC Insurance Company; Michelle Saito, President of DTRIC; Jeffrey Crabtree, as an Individual; Virginia Crandall, as an Individual; Patricia Ohara, as an Individual; Michael K. Tanigawa, as an Individual; Jeannette H. Castagnetti, as an Individual; Ralph Rosenberg, as an Individual; Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc.; Criscenta Gaoiran, as an Individual, Not as an Employee of Straub Hospital Medical Records Department (collectively, Appellees).
The Honorable John M. Tonaki presided.
Taylor raises three points of error on appeal, contending that the Circuit Court erred in this case because the court: (1) did not appropriately set and schedule hearings and meetings; (2) did not put effort into researching her painful experience, or consider her Complaint; and (3) performed the same as an unethical lawyer.
Taylor also lists two "Questions Presented" which appear to be rhetorical in nature.
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 by the parties, we resolve Taylor's points of error as follows:
Taylor's points of error do not comply with the Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) in numerous and important ways. See, e.g., HRAP Rules 28(b)(4) & (7). We focus on the important infirmities because they hamper our review of her appeal. Taylor does not include any citations to the record, including where she contends that the Circuit Court erred and where she raised her argument or objection in the trial court.
Taylor cites no statutes, rules, cases or other legal authorities supporting her contention that she is entitled to relief from the Judgment. Most fundamentally, Taylor makes no cogent argument that the Circuit Court erred in entering the Judgment against her.
Hawai'i courts have long adhered to the policy of affording litigants the opportunity to be heard on the merits whenever possible. Morgan v. Planning Dep't, Cty. Of Kauai, 104 Hawai'i 173, 180-81, 86 P.3d 982, 989-90 (2004) (citing O'Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai'i 383, 386, 885 P.2d 361, 364 (1994)). In view of this longstanding policy, self-represented litigants like Taylor do not automatically have their access to appellate review foreclosed because of failure to conform to requirements of the procedural rules. See id. In that light, we have carefully reviewed Taylor's arguments to the extent they can be discerned. We nevertheless conclude that they are without merit.
For these reasons, the Circuit Court's June 23, 2020 Judgment is affirmed.