Malahoff v. Sato

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 24805 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ALEXANDER MALAHOFF; LINDA CURRIVAN; DIANE FERREIRA; HUGH FOLK; VINCENT LINARES; DAVID MILLER; and UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI#I PROFESSIONAL ASSEMBLY, Plaintiffs-Appellees vs. RAYMOND H. SATO, in his capacity as Comptroller of the State of Hawai#i; and BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Hawai#i, Defendants-Appellants APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 99-2173) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that the December 12, 2001 judgment in Civil No. 99-2173-06, the Honorable Victoria S. Marks presiding, does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 58 of the Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP). An appeal may be taken from circuit court orders resolving claims against parties only after the orders have been reduced to a judgment and the judgment has been entered in favor of and against the appropriate parties pursuant to HRCP 58[.] Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119. 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994). Furthermore, if the judgment purports to be the final judgment in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties, the judgment . . . must identify the claims for which it is entered[.] Id. Although Plaintiffs-Appellees Alexander Malahoff, Linda Currivan, Diane Ferreira, Hugh Folk, Vincent Linares, David Miller, and University of Hawaii Professional Assembly s (the Appellees) amended complaint asserts four separate causes of action against multiple parties, the December 12, 2001 judgment does not identify the claims for which it is entered or that judgment is entered on all four of the Appellees causes of action. Therefore, Defendants-Appellants Raymond H. Sato and Benjamin J. Cayetano s appeal is premature and we lack appellate jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 29, 2002. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.