Choy v. Wailua Shopping Plaza
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
NO. 26067
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
WILLIAM CHOY AND ME & MA CORPORATION, PlaintiffsAppellants/Cross-Appellees
vs.
WAILUA SHOPPING PLAZA AND STANLEY TOKIKAWA, DefendantsAppellees/Cross-Appellants
and
DOES 1-10, Defendants
(CIV. NO. 97-0007)
----------------------------------------------------------------WAILUA SHOPPING PLAZA, a Hawai#i limited partnership,
Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
MEE & MA CORPORATION, a Hawai#i corporation, dba Mema Cuisine,
Defendant-Appellant
(CIV. NO. 01-1-0068)
APPEAL FROM THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon review of the record, it appears that the June 18,
2003 amended judgment is the appealable final judgment in
consolidated Civil No. 97-0007 and Civil No. 01-1-0068.
The
circuit court granted appellants an extension of time to appeal
the June 18, 2003 amended judgment and extended the time for
appeal until September 4, 2003.
However, HRAP 4(a)(4)(B)
prohibited the circuit court from extending the appeal period
beyond August 17, 2003.
See HRAP 4(a)(4)(B)(“[N]o such extension
shall exceed 30 days past the [original 30 day appeal period].”).
Appellants were orally granted the extension of time to appeal on
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
August 14, 2003, before expiration of the August 17, 2003
deadline imposed by HRAP 4(a)(4)(B), but appellants did not file
their notice of appeal until September 4, 2003.
The notice of
appeal was filed beyond the extension period allowed by HRAP
4(a)(4)(B) and is an untimely appeal of the June 18, 2003 amended
judgment.
The failure of an appellant to file a timely notice of
appeal in a civil matter is a jurisdictional defect that can
neither be waived by the parties nor disregarded by the appellate
court in the exercise of judicial discretion.
Bacon v. Karlin,
68 Haw. 648, 650, 727 P.2d 1127, 1128 (1986).
Thus, we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal and cross-appeal.
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.
