Garcia v. Bruderer
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 24598 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I TERESITA GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. DAVID BRUDERER, Defendant-Appellee and JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE JOINT VENTURES 1-10, DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 00-1-0235) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that the September 24, 2001 order granting sanctions under HRCP Rule 11 is not immediately appealable by plaintiff Garcia, who can seek review of the order on appeal from a final judgment in Civil No. 00-1-0235. (1994). See Siangco v. Kasadate, 77 Hawai#i 157, 883 P.2d 78 The September 24, 2001 order, which imposes sanctions against Garcia s attorney, is appealable by the attorney, Phillip Carey, but the September 28, 2001 notice of appeal did not name Carey as a party on appeal. See HRAP 3(c); Stewart Properties, Inc. v. Brennan, 8 Haw. App. 431, 435, 807 P.2d 606, 608 (1991); Gold v. Harrison, 88 Hawai#i 94, 103-04, 962 P.2d 353, 362-63 (1998). Thus, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. 1 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 16, 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.
