Gunderson v. Shaw
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
*** NO T FO R PUBLICATION ***
NO. 25893
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
JAMES D. GUNDERSON, JR.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant
vs.
ASLAM MOHAMMAD SHAW,
Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant/Cross-Claimant/Cross-Appellee
MAHMUNIR AFSHAR SHAH,
Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant/Cross-Appellee
and
JOHN DOES 1-10, JOHN DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS
1-10, and JOHN DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------------ASLAM MOHAMMAD SHAW, Third-Party Plaintiff,
vs.
ANDREW FASHOLA (aka ADE FASHOLA); BUREAU OF LEGAL SERVICES,
A.P.C., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND BUREAU OF LEGAL SERVICES
(LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA DBA),
and
ROBERT J. CARTWRIGHT AND WHALERS REALTY, INC., A HAWAII
CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 01-1-0256)
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon review of the record, it appears that the judgment
entered on May 14, 2003, the Honorable Joel E. August, presiding,
purports to be a certified final judgment on the claims and
counterclaims by and between plaintiff James Gunderson, Jr. and
*** NO T FO R PUBLICATION ***
defendants Mahmunir Shah and Aslam Shaw.
However, the May 14,
2003 judgment merely recites how the claims and counterclaims
were resolved, but does not identify and enter judgment in favor
of and against the parties on the claims asserted in the first
amended complaint and does not enter judgment in favor of and
against the parties on Counts 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the first
amended counterclaim, as required by Jenkins v. Cades Schutte
Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119-120, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338-39
(1994)(“[I]f a judgment purports to be the final judgment in a
case involving multiple claims or multiple parties, the judgment
must specifically identify the party or parties for and against
whom the judgment is entered and must identify the claims for
which it is entered[.]").
lack jurisdiction.
Thus, this appeal is premature and we
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal and cross-appeal
are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 7, 2004.
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.
