Afanasenko v. County of Hawaii
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
NO. 25999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
SERGIO AFANASENKO, Plaintiff-Appellant
vs.
COUNTY OF HAWAI#I, TONY ENRIQUEZ, and DONALD WATSON,
Defendants/Cross-Claim Plaintiffs/Appellees
and
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, A DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF
HAWAI#I, EDWIN AKANA, WHITTAKER & LACY, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
A LAW CORPORATION, PETERSON MACHINE TOOL, INC., HARTFORD FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE ENTITIES 1-10, DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-10, and DOE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10,
Defendants/Cross-Claim Defendants/Appellees
APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 99-529)
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon review of the record, it appears that we do not
have jurisdiction over Plaintiff-Appellant Sergio Afanasenko’s
(Appellant Afanasenko) appeal from the Honorable Terence T.
Yoshioka’s June 30, 2003 judgment because it does not satisfy the
requirements for an appealable final judgment under our holding
in Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115,
119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (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, and . . . dismiss any claims not
specifically identified[.]
Id. at 119, 869 P.2d at 1338.
The June 30, 2003 judgment
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
contains the finding necessary for certification under Rule 54(b)
of the Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP).
However, despite
that Appellant Afanasenko asserted multiple claims in his
October 23, 2002 first amended complaint, the June 30, 2003
judgment does not specifically identify the claim(s) for which
judgment is entered.
Therefore, the June 30, 2003 judgment does
not satisfy the requirements for an appealable final judgment
under HRCP Rule 54(b), HRCP Rule 58, HRS § 641-1(a) (1993), and
our holding in Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76
Hawai#i at 119, 869 P.2d at 1338.
Absent the entry of an
appealable final judgment, this appeal is premature and we lack
appellate jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is 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.
