The Association of Apartment Owners of Newtown Meadows v. Venture 15, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION *** NO. 26216 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I THE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF NEWTOWN MEADOWS, by its Board of Directors, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. VENTURE 15, INC., ROYAL CONTRACTING CO., LTD., A.W. ASSOCIATES, INC., dba GEOLABS HAWAII, and R.H.S. LEE, INC., Defendants-Appellees and S. HORITA CONTRACTING & BUILDING SUPPLIES, LTD., and DOES 4-100, Defendants ----------------------------------------------------------------VENTURE 15, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee vs. S. HORITA CONTRACTING & BUILDING SUPPLIES, LTD., Third-Party Defendant ----------------------------------------------------------------GEOLABS HAWAII, Defendant and Additional Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee vs. COMMUNITY PLANNING, INC., Additional Third-Party Defendant ----------------------------------------------------------------S. HORITA CONTRACTING & BUILDING SUPPLIES, LTD., Defendant and Additional Third-Party Plaintiff vs. LIU CONSTRUCTION, INC., Additional Third-Party Defendant-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 97-0642) * * * NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)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 October 15, 2003, the Honorable Eden Elizabeth Hifo, presiding, purports to be a certified final judgment on claims for which summary judgment was granted in Civil No. 97-0642. However, the October 15, 2003 judgment merely lists the orders that granted or partially granted defendants motions for summary judgment, but does not identify and enter judgment in favor of and against the parties on the claims for which summary judgment was granted, 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[.]"). jurisdiction. Thus, this appeal is premature and we lack Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 23, 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.
