Background
Rosy Esprecion Thomas appealed from proceedings in Civil No. 1CC161001976 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.
On October 19, 2026, Thomas moved for reconsideration of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ October 8, 2026 summary disposition order. She alternatively requested leave to order a transcript of proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied reconsideration. After considering the motion, supporting papers, and record, it concluded that Thomas presented no point of law or fact that the court had overlooked or misapprehended under Rule 40(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The court also denied Thomas’s alternative request for leave to order a transcript, ruling that the request was untimely.
Key Takeaways
- Thomas identified no point of law or fact that the appellate court had overlooked or misapprehended.
- The court denied her motion to reconsider its October 8, 2026 summary disposition order.
- The court separately denied her alternative transcript request as untimely.
Why It Matters
The order applies Hawaii’s appellate reconsideration standard to require an overlooked or misapprehended point of law or fact. It also shows that an untimely request for leave to order a transcript may be denied.