Opinion
CAAP-23-0000069
03-15-2023
LONNELL REGINALD WIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HICKAM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; MARK (DOE); ELISA (DOE), Defendants-Appellees
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 1CCV-22-0001588)
Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Chan, JJ.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
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 Hawaii 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 Hawaii 319, 321 n.3, 966 P.2d 631, 633 n.3 (1998); see also Hawaii Revised Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016); Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 54(b), 58; Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawaii 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 Hawaii 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.