AFL Hotel & Restaurant Workers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Bosque
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
NO. 26017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
AFL HOTEL & RESTAURANT WORKERS HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND, by
its Trustees, Cherlyn Logan, Malcolm Sur, Nona Tamanaha, Eric
Gill, Gilbert Farias, and Hernando Tan, Plaintiffs-Appellants
vs.
ELMER BOSQUE, Defendant-Appellee
(S.C. No. 26017)
----------------------------------------------------------------AFL HOTEL & RESTAURANT WORKERS HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND, by
its Trustees, Cherlyn Logan, Malcolm Sur, Nona Tamanaha, Eric
Gill, Gilbert Farias, and Hernando Tan, Plaintiffs-Appellants
vs.
ELMER BOSQUE, Defendant-Appellee
(S.C. No. 26100)
APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 03-1-0264)
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 AFL Hotel & Restaurant
Workers Heath & Welfare Trust Fund’s consolidated appeals from
the Honorable Kenneth E. Enright’s August 6, 2003 “Order Granting
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint” and September 15, 2003
“Order Mooting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on All
Counts” in Civil No. 03-1-0264-02 (DDD).
Pursuant to the
separate document rule under Rule 58 of the Hawai#i Rules of
Civil Procedure (HRCP), “[a]n appeal may be taken from circuit
court orders resolving claims against parties only after the
orders have been reduced to a judgment and the judgment has been
entered in favor of and against the appropriate parties pursuant
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
to HRCP [Rule] 58[.]”
Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright,
76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994).
When a circuit
court dismisses claims by a court order, the HRCP Rule 58
separate document rule requires the circuit court to reduce the
dismissal order to a separate judgment.
See, e.g., Price v.
Obayashi Hawaii Corporation, 81 Hawai#i 171, 176, 914 P.2d 1364,
1369 (1996) (“Although RCCH [Rule] 12(q) [(regarding dismissal
for want of prosecution)] does not mention the necessity of
filing a separate document, HRCP [Rule] 58, as amended in 1990,
expressly requires that ‘every judgment be set forth on a
separate document.’”); CRSC, Inc. v. Sage Diamond Co., Inc., 95
Hawai#i 301, 306, 22 P.3d 97, 102 (App. 2001) (“[W]here all
claims are dismissed and there is no relevant HRCP Rule 54(b)
certification as to one or more but not all of the dismissals,
there must be one final order (judgment) dismissing all claims
against all parties.”).
The circuit court has not reduced the
appealed orders to a separate judgment pursuant to HRCP Rule 58.
Therefore, these consolidated appeals are premature, and we lack
appellate jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that these consolidated appeals
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.
