George v. Diamond Parking, Inc.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 25650 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I NOREEN I. GEORGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DIAMOND PARKING, INC., and NAOMI TAAGA, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-20; JANE DOES 1-20; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-20; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-20; DOE "NON-PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-20; and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-20, Defendants. APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 02-1-0180) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES DIAMOND PARKING, INC. AND NAOMI TAAGA S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama and Acoba, JJ,. and Circuit Judge Blondin, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of Defendants-Appellees Diamond Parking, Inc. and Naomi Taaga s motion to dismiss the appeal of Plaintiff-Appellant Noreen I. George for failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure, the papers in support, and the records and files herein, it appears that: (1) on February 21, 2003, Appellant filed a notice of appeal; (2) on April 22, 2003, the supreme court notified Appellant that the case was being entered on the calendar and that the statement of jurisdiction was due on May 2, 2003 and the opening brief was due on June 1, 2003; (3) on May 9, 2003, after Appellant failed to file the statement of jurisdiction, the clerk s office informed Appellant that the time to file the statement of jurisdiction expired and that the matter would be called to the attention of the court; (4) Appellant did not seek relief from default or file the statement of jurisdiction; (4) on June 6, 2003, after Appellant failed to file the opening brief, the clerk s office informed Appellant that the opening brief was in default and that the matter would be called to the attention of the court on June 13, 2003 for such action as the court deems proper, and the appeal may be dismissed; (5) Appellant did not seek relief from default or file the opening brief; and (6) Appellant did not oppose the motion to dismiss. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted, and this appeal is dismissed pursuant to HRAP Rule 30. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 8, 2003. Paul Yamamura, Wesley Shimazu (Yamamura & Shimazu) for defendantsappellees on the motion 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.