Background
Self-represented plaintiff Davis Price appealed the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s November 19, 2025 order granting Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, lack of service, and abandonment of claims.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals temporarily remanded for clarification of whether claims remained against other defendants and, if all claims were dismissed, entry of a final appealable judgment. On remand, the circuit court entered an amended order dismissing all claims against Securitas but stating that claims against the other defendants remained pending.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The amended order was not final because it resolved claims only against Securitas while claims against other defendants remained pending, and it had not been reduced to a Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b) judgment.
The court also held that the amended order was not independently appealable under the collateral-order or Forgay doctrines. Nor had the circuit court granted leave for an interlocutory appeal under HRS § 641-1(b).
Key Takeaways
- An order dismissing claims against one defendant is generally not appealable while claims against other defendants remain pending.
- A Rule 54(b) judgment may be required to appeal a disposition involving fewer than all claims or parties.
- Absent finality, a qualifying exception, or authorized interlocutory review, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that appellate jurisdiction depends on a final judgment or a recognized basis for immediate review. Parties seeking to appeal a partial dismissal should confirm that the trial court has entered an appropriate Rule 54(b) judgment or granted interlocutory-review permission.