Hiatt v. Lois Business Development Corporation

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 25022 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I JERRY MICHAEL HIATT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, A LAW CORPORATION dba LAW OFFICE OF JERRY M. HIATT, Petitioner-Appellee vs. LOIS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PACIFIC RIM BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and SCOTT C. WALLACE, Respondents-Appellants APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (S.P. NO. 01-1-0403) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that RespondentsAppellants Lois Business Development Corporation, Pacific Rim Business Development Corporation, and Scott C. Wallace (Appellants) attempt to appeal from two orders that are not, by themselves, appealable: (1) the December 17, 2001 order granting Petitioner-Appellee Jerry Michael Hiatt s motion to compel arbitration; and (2) the March 1, 2002 order granting in part and denying in part the Appellants motion for reconsideration of the December 17, 2001 order. 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 Rule 58 of the Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP). Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994). The circuit court, the Honorable Gary W.B. Chang presiding, did not reduce the orders to a judgment pursuant to HRCP Rule 58. Furthermore, the orders are not appealable under the collateral order doctrine because neither order resolved an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action in S.P. No. 01-1-0403. See Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai#i 319, 322, 966 P.2d 631, 634 (1998). Therefore, this appeal is premature, and we lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 21, 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.