Enomoto v. Waikiki Plaza Hotel Partners
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 23503 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I THOMAS T. ENOMOTO, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee vs. WAIKIKI PLAZA HOTEL PARTNERS, BANKING CO., LTD., a Hawai#i limited partnership, BRADLEY HOLDINGS, LTD., a Delaware corporation, OTAKE HOLDINGS, INC., a Hawai#i corporation, HOTEL PARTNERS, INC., Defendants-Appellees and MITSUI TRUST & BANKING CO., LTD., CHAD GRIFFITH, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants and JOHN DOES 1-50, JANE DOES 1-50, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50, DOE ENTITIES 1-50, DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-50, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 97-3352) AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Levinson, Acting C.J., Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ., and Circuit Judge Wilson, in Place of Moon, C.J., Recused1) Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) this court informed Cross-Appellants Mitsui Trust & Banking Co., Ltd. and Chad Griffith, and Appellant Thomas Enomoto, by letters dated February 12, 2001 and March 2, 2001, respectively, that the time for filing their respective opening briefs expired on December 15, 2000 and that, pursuant to Rule 30 of the Hawai#i 1 The March 21, 2001 Order Dismising Appeal listed, and, therefore, was inadvertently signed by Chief Justice Moon, who was recused from the case, rather than by substitute justice Wilson, who was assigned as a substitute justice on October 4, 2000. Rules of Appellate Procedure, the matter would be called to the attention of the court for such action as the court deemed proper including dismissal of the appeal; (2) by letter dated February 15, 2001, cross-appellants informed the court that they had no objections to dismissal of the cross-appeal if the appeal is also dismissed; (3) by letter dated March 6, 2001, appellant informed the court that he had no objections to dismissal of the appeal and cross-appeal herein. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 28, 2001. -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.
