Peca v. Riedl

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

*** NO T FO R PUBLICATION *** NOS. 25627 and 25840 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ALBA PECA, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. BRIGITTE R. RIEDL, Defendant-Appellee and JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS; DOE CORPORATIONS, DOE ENTITIES and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-50, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 00-1-1247) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that the January 10, 2003 judgment and the April 25, 2003 amended judgment, the Honorable Dexter D. Del Rosario, presiding, purport to be the final judgments in Civil No. 00-1-1247, but the judgments do not, on their face, show finality as to all of the parties claims inasmuch as the judgments fail to state that the award of $1,700.00 is an award on the defendant s counterclaim. See Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119-120, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338-39 (1994)(In a multiple claim or multiple party circuit court case, a judgment that purports to be the final judgment must identify the claims for which the judgment is entered and must, on its face, show finality as to all claims. A statement that declares there are no other *** NO T FO R PUBLICATION *** outstanding claims is not a judgment.). premature and we lack jurisdiction. Thus, these appeals are Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that No. 25627 and No. 25840 are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 29, 2003. 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.