Yoneda v. Tom

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

*** NO T FO R PUBLICATION *** NO. 25736 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I RYAN YONEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. ANDREW TOM and SPORTS SHINKO (MILILANI) CO., LTD., Defendants-Appellees and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, ROE NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS 1-10 and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 01-1-2359) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that the first amended complaint filed in Civil No. 01-1-2359 asserted multiple claims against defendant Sports Shinko (Mililani) Co. Ltd., but the March 3, 2003 judgment, the Honorable David Lo, presiding, which purports to be the final judgment, fails to state that the judgment in favor of defendant Sports Shinko is a judgment on all of the plaintiff s claims against Sports Shinko. 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 *** NO T FO R PUBLICATION *** statement that declares there are no other outstanding claims is not a judgment.). jurisdiction. Thus, this appeal is premature and we lack Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 4, 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.