Wideman v. Hickam Federal Credit Union

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-23-0000069 15-MAR-2023 08:16 AM Dkt. 22 OGMD NO. CAAP-23-0000069 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I LONNELL REGINALD WIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HICKAM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; MARK (DOE); ELISA (DOE), Defendants-Appellees APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 1CCV-22-0001588) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Chan, JJ.) (By: Upon consideration of self-represented PlaintiffAppellant 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 Hawai i 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 Hawai i 319, 321 n.3, 966 P.2d 631, 633 n.3 (1998); see also Hawaii Revised Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016); Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 54(b), 58; Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER 76 Hawai i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994).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 Hawai i 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. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, March 15, 2023. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge 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.