Background
Shareen W. Kaheaku, proceeding without counsel, sued Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez, William Quemado, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Steven Alm, and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Francisco Valenzuela. She alleged that Quemado had made false misdemeanor filings against her and that the Attorney General’s refusal to prosecute him amounted to governmental misconduct and disparate treatment.
The Attorney General moved to dismiss under Hawaii Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Although Kaheaku sought leave to amend, the circuit court continued the dismissal hearing and gave her time to file and serve an amended complaint. She did not amend, oppose the motion, or attend the rescheduled hearing. The circuit court dismissed the claims. After a temporary remand for an appealable judgment, the circuit court entered judgment for the Attorney General and dismissed with prejudice the claims against the other defendants, who had not been served.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment as to Attorney General Lopez. It rejected Kaheaku’s claim of structural error, explaining that a Rule 12(b)(6) hearing is not an evidentiary proceeding and that the continuance accommodated, rather than ignored, her request to amend. Given her failure to amend, oppose dismissal, or appear at the hearing, the circuit court did not err in granting the Attorney General’s motion.
The court vacated the dismissal of the claims against Quemado, Alm, and Valenzuela. Although Kaheaku had not served those defendants within the six-month period contemplated by RCCH Rule 28, the record did not show that she received notice of a proposed dismissal for failure to serve. The case was remanded for an amended Rule 54(b) judgment in favor of the Attorney General and for further proceedings consistent with Rule 28.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 12(b)(6) hearing does not require an evidentiary presentation.
- A litigant who does not amend, oppose a dismissal motion, or attend the hearing cannot establish error merely from the dismissal.
- Claims against unserved defendants may not be dismissed for lack of service under RCCH Rule 28 without the required notice.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between a merits dismissal against a properly participating defendant and an administrative dismissal for failure to serve other defendants. Even where a plaintiff has not timely served defendants, Rule 28’s notice protections must be observed before dismissal.