Background
This appeal arose from a district court proceeding in the ‘Ewa Division of the District Court of the First Circuit, Hawaii (Case No. 1DRC-25-0001519). Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant Arthur Jeremiah, appearing self-represented, filed a notice of appeal from a ruling in favor of Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee Ken Fukuyama.
After filing the notice of appeal, Jeremiah failed to file a statement of jurisdiction by the January 15, 2026 deadline or an opening brief by the February 17, 2026 deadline, and did not request any extension of time for either filing. The appellate clerk entered a default notice on February 23, 2026, warning Jeremiah that the matter would be called to the court’s attention on March 5, 2026, and that dismissal was a potential consequence. That notice was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable, and Jeremiah had not filed a notice of change of address as required by HRAP Rule 25(f).
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The court found that Jeremiah had taken no further action since filing the notice of appeal — he filed neither the required statement of jurisdiction nor the opening brief, sought no extensions, filed no notice of change of address, and did not seek relief from the default entered against him.
Citing HRAP Rules 12.1(e) and 30, which authorize dismissal for failure to file jurisdictional statements and opening briefs, the court concluded that dismissal was appropriate. All pending motions were likewise dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant’s failure to file both a statement of jurisdiction and an opening brief by their respective deadlines — with no request for extension — will support dismissal of the appeal under HRAP Rules 12.1(e) and 30.
- Self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural requirements as represented parties; pro se status does not excuse non-compliance with appellate rules.
- Appellants bear the obligation to keep a current address on file with the court under HRAP Rule 25(f); a returned default notice does not excuse inaction where the failure to receive it resulted from the appellant’s own failure to update his address.
Why It Matters
This decision is a straightforward but important reminder that appellate courts will enforce briefing deadlines even against self-represented litigants. The failure to file foundational documents — a statement of jurisdiction and an opening brief — combined with the failure to maintain a current address of record, left the appellant with no viable path to continue the appeal.
For practitioners, the case underscores the need to counsel clients who proceed pro se about the strict requirements of the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, particularly the obligations to update contact information and to timely seek extensions when deadlines cannot be met. Courts have limited tolerance for complete inaction after a default notice has issued.