Narrative Opinion Summary
In a dispute between Greene Lane Capital LLC and DM Kulana Hale Holdings LLC, the Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawai#i addressed the appeal regarding an Order Granting Ex Parte Motion for the Appointment of a Receiver Pendente Lite. The appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, as the Circuit Court case had not resulted in a final, appealable judgment pursuant to HRS § 641-1(a) and the Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found that the interlocutory order appointing a receiver did not qualify for exceptions under the collateral-order doctrine, as Greene Lane Capital LLC failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or loss of rights. Additionally, the order was not appealable under the Forgay doctrine, as it did not divest the appellants of their partnership interests. The court also noted that the order was non-appealable under HRS § 641-1(b), due to the lack of certification and absence of a request for certification. The decision to dismiss the appeal was issued by Chief Judge Lisa M. Ginoza and Associate Judges Keith K. Hiraoka and Alexa D.M. Fujise on September 3, 2021.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealability under the Forgay Doctrinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Order did not qualify for appeal under the Forgay doctrine, as it did not involve divesting the appellants of their partnership interest.
Reasoning: Additionally, the Order did not qualify for appeal under the Forgay doctrine, since it did not involve divesting the appellants of their partnership interest.
Certification Requirement for Appeal under HRS § 641-1(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Order was non-appealable under HRS § 641-1(b) due to the lack of required certification and the absence of a certification request.
Reasoning: The Order was also deemed non-appealable under HRS § 641-1(b) because it was not certified as required and no certification request was made.
Final Judgment Requirement under HRS § 641-1(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined it lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a final, appealable judgment from the Circuit Court.
Reasoning: The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the underlying Circuit Court case had not produced a final, appealable judgment, as required by HRS § 641-1(a) and the Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (specifically Rules 58 and 54(b)).
Interlocutory Orders and the Collateral-Order Doctrinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The interlocutory Order Appointing Receiver was not independently appealable as it did not meet the criteria for exceptions under the collateral-order doctrine.
Reasoning: The interlocutory Order Appointing Receiver was not independently appealable and did not meet the criteria for exceptions under the collateral-order doctrine, as the appellants had not demonstrated irreparable harm or loss of rights due to the Receiver's actions.