Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, the defendants filed a Suggestion of Death for the appellant, leading the court to request a substitution of parties under HRAP Rule 43(a). Despite reminders, no personal representative was appointed to substitute the deceased appellant, Ronald Git Sum Au, within the stipulated timeframe. The court identified Natalie A. Nishida as the potential personal representative, but she, through her attorney in a related appeal, expressed unwillingness to substitute or pursue the appeal. Consequently, the appellees sought dismissal based on the lack of substitution and Nishida's express decision not to participate. The court dismissed the appeal under HRAP Rule 43(a) due to the absence of a motion for substitution and the appellant's death, emphasizing procedural adherence. The dismissal order was issued on November 8, 2021, and sent to the relevant parties, highlighting the procedural finality of the appellant’s death impacting the case’s continuation.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal Due to Lack of Substitutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed after no motion for substitution was filed, and the personal representative expressed unwillingness to proceed with the appeal.
Reasoning: The appeal was dismissed under HRAP Rule 43(a), based on Nishida's choice not to participate.
Implications of Appellant's Death on Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed the procedural implications of the appellant's death, requiring statements from the parties on how to proceed.
Reasoning: On October 15, 2021, the court ordered the parties to submit statements regarding the implications of the appellant's death and the lack of a motion for substitution within 21 days.
Substitution of Parties under HRAP Rule 43(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court required a personal representative to be appointed to substitute the deceased appellant within 30 days, but no action was taken, leading to dismissal.
Reasoning: The court issued an order on April 1, 2021, requiring a personal representative to be appointed and to notify the court within 30 days regarding substitution into the case, as per HRAP Rule 43(a).